Saturday, August 16, 2008

Blips on the Screen: 16 Aug 08

Universal Health Care: Yay or Nay?
Author: Ryan

A note from Radarsite: There is a new voice in the blogosphere. A young voice, energetic, intelligent and observant. Radarsite is happy to welcome Ryan (formerly known to us as "Webmaster") and his "Blogus Politicus" to our neighborhood.
Good luck and best wishes, Ryan. - rg


A major item in this election is shaping up to be health care. Social health care vs. private health care. Advocates of social health care point to rising health care costs and tell the American people, "you don't have to bear this burden!" Advocates of privatized health care point to the myriad government programs that do nothing but draw attention and money from real issues and ask, "why give the government another cash vacuum?" Social health advocates cite Europeans and Canadians who just love social health care. Private health advocates cite Europeans and Canadians who had to come to America in order to receive live-saving treatment. Social health advocates point to life expectancies and child mortality rates in Europe, and private health advocates wonder what life expectancies and child mortality rates have to do with free dental and optic insurance.

So, what's the deal, here? Does social health care work or not? The answer is an unequivocal yes; it does work, or else Canada and Europe would be in some major health care crises right now (the fact that some of them are notwithstanding). The question to ask is whether it is preferable to private health insurance. From where I'm sitting, the answer is an unequivocal no, and the reasons, to me, are obvious.
First, though, an important distinction must be made. There is national health CARE, in which the government tells you which doctor to go to, and there is national health INSURANCE, in which the doctor of your choosing is paid by the government for services rendered -- also called single payer insurance. The former is simply ludicrous; few in America want that. People are, however, advocating a single payer system.

The first and most simple argument is that universal health care (heretofore referred to as UHC) isn't free; it is either planted into your taxes or a much less subtle forced monthly premium, or both. Just so you know, Barack Obama's plan entails both. You'll still have to pay all the normal fees if you want health insurance and can afford it. The only difference is that if you don't want the financial burden of health insurance, you'll get it anyways under a UHC program; every penny not accounted for by the people paying into the system directly will be plugged right into your federal taxes. This of course includes those who cannot afford to pay any premiums, co-pays or deductibles. They'll get it completely free -- or rather, you will get to pay for it. As someone who would see nothing but benefit from this system, I have to say this disgusts me. Forced charity may fly in Europe and Canada, but it goes against every fiber of the American dream. It is nobody's right but my own to decide whether I give my money away to help others.

Read the rest at Blogus Politicus

1 comment:

  1. While socialized medicine is not the answer, the system we have now is not the answer either.

    We have all heard of the horror stories of socialized medicine in other nations and one only have to look at the VA to see how it would be applied here.

    But the current system is not good either. Unless you can afford good health care, you get inferior health care or none at all.

    With millions of American citizens having no health care, some sort of solution must be done. And if I knew of one, I'd be a billionaire.