Well, it’s campaign season again; time for pointed speeches, witty one-liners, and a fresh round of campaign promises. For liberals, that means talk of new social entitlement programs, tax increases for the “rich,” and of course, national healthcare.
Though its still early in the campaign season, most of the major Democrat candidates for President have already released their five or ten point plans to cure all of our nation’s ills. As usual, they all started by pitching their proposals for what is referred to these days as “national healthcare.”
But, despite all their claims to represent a new way forward, nothing they’ve said has been new. In fact, each of their plans really just consists of the same tired ideas of the past. The idea of compulsory health insurance provided by the state has actually been around for a long, long time. Of course, in the early days pundits were still referring to it by its true name: socialized medicine.
Fortunately for us, the American people haven’t yet been tricked into supporting socialized medicine on the national level. Still, every now and again its important to remember just why such a thing isn’t a good idea. Here’s what a young Ronald Reagan had to say about early efforts to adopt socialized medicine:
If you take a minute to listen, it’s remarkable how similar some of those bills he describes sound to the plans now being advanced by the Democrat candidates for President. Just another example of how little politics changes.
Reagan was a good man! This country would be saved if we had another president like him! Nice Blog!
Estimates are we could save about a third on our health care premiums just by switching to universal health care.
Other industrialized nations spend about 11% of their GNP on health care, while the US spends over 16%, and it’s estimated to reach 20% real soon.
Switching to universal health care would save Americans about $700 billion a year.
Besides, it’s just THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
You take care of your citizens.
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care
Thanks for the comment christianliberal. I’m happy to allow comments from competing viewpoints. Your post compels me to point just a few things out in response though.
First, you claim that our country could save on health care premiums by switching to a mandatory, government provided system. That claim in itself is logically inconsistent. Any increase in the number of people covered under a government program would require a similar increase in government expenditures. That creates an increase in overall cost, not a reduction.
Second, any cost savings that might exist in your theoretical model are not likely to exist in reality because of overhead costs. Every government bureaucracy requires administrative oversight. And, if there’s anything that we’ve learned from past experiments with government programs, its that the government can do nothing without a bloated bureaucracy. A (probably large) portion of every dollar spent on “health care” would in fact be spent to staff and operate just another government office. Thus, a government program would actually divert money from its intended purpose and dramatically increase overall costs.
Third, I think its important to realize that having the government pay in no way reduces the actual cost of health care. The price of the service is the same, the only difference is the person who signs the bill. And, though its easy to think of the government as some benevolent third party, ours is a government by the people. Every dollar the government takes on April 15th is a dollar taken out of our pockets and out of the American economy. We would all end up footing the bill anyway, plus an additional fee for the administrative oversight I already mentioned.
Fourth, the prevailing international trend is not toward socialized medicine as your post suggests, but away from it. Most countries that have experimented with a government monopoly of the health care industry have found it to be astronomically expensive, highly ineffecient, and fraught with administrative problems and corruption. Accordingly, international reforms have mostly been geared toward creating systems that work more like our own.
Fifth, I do not believe that cost should be our only concern. Even if a new government program did somehow magically reduce costs, we might just end up with a health care system worth what we paid for it. It is no accident that ours is the best health care system in the world in terms of quality. World leaders and international residents who can afford it often seek medical aid in the United States, avoiding the supposedly “free” care available in their home countries. Aside from its legitimate functions, the government does nothing so well as private industry. Experience has shown that this is as true in the medical arena as it is in any other.
Finally, you argue that providing socialized medicine is the “right thing to do.” I assume given your screen name (“christianliberal”) that you are implying that a government run health care system is appropriate given our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage. I think that mischaracterizes Christ’s example. Christ instructed His followers to feed the hungry and care for the poor. He did not tell them to abdicate their responsibilities as Christians by simply writing to Caesar and demanding that Rome implement another social welfare program. While I believe that your heart is in the right place, the effect of your suggested program deprives us as Christians of the opportunity to demonstrate our faith and share Christ’s love with the world.