Should the United States Have Universal Health Care?

Universal Health Care likely means increases in taxes and unnecessary spending. It is a lack of faith in the principles of capitalism to think there are no solutions to health care issues within it. To illustrate this point think of a small community of around 100 people;2 within the community are doctors. Let’s assume the average income is 30k making a tax increase of 10% equal to a rise of $3000/year. Even if the tax increase were only 5% that would be $1500 or $125/month per person. Incidently that could get you fairly decent private insurance. Given there would be a tax increase of 5-10% does it make more sense to have more or less control of one’s health care? If one pays the taxes, the Government decides for you, if you pay for private insurance you decide about Health Care providers.

The next point in this opposition to universal health care is in regard to high hospital bills and ever increasing private medical costs. This is clearly and issue and has the potential to wipe out many families’ savings. It does not mean a thoughtful fiscally conservative solution to the problem does not exist, and it is unreasonable to assume that such a solution does not exist. So what is potentially fiscally conservative solution? Government can regulate what isn’t in its control; it has done this before with anti-trust, federal approval of drugs, federal oversight of building code etc. The Government does not have to have absolute control of health care to assist in a solution. Possible solutions include cost caps, legalized mandatory private insurance, co-op insurance, partially subsidized insurance, federal investment insurance and so on. The amount of solutions are as many as a creative bureaucrat can think of!

Economically, the healthier a nation is, the less health insurance individuals should need. This being the case the Government may be better off spending 1% of taxes to promote healthier lifestyle than 5% fixing the problems created by poor lifestyle choices. Even if only 25% of the population becomes healthier from a healthy living campaign that’s a net savings of 10% off the 5% of taxes since only 1% was spent and 25% of %5 is 1.25%. Subtract the 1% healthy living campaign expenses from the 1.25% and that’s 25 basis points the Government saved itself and tax payers. On a grand scale of say a billion dollars, that would mean savings of 2 and a half million dollars.

Yet another reason universal health care should be avoided is because people often know more about their health than the Government or its potential doctors ever will. A plan in which every individual in the country is legislated to pay $20.00/month to a private health insurance plan, and further subsidized by say a decrease in personal vehicle property taxes at the State level, and a federal subsidy paid for by a fractional decrease in some of the less useful Government programs, and mandated minimum contributions from employers would pay for itself and probably generate a surplus if managed well. Individuals would still have the freedoms associated with private health insurance and pay less for it.
Lastly, when Government takes things over, things get slowed down. In the Canadian health care system people often have to wait for longer periods to get crucial surgery and vital medical attention. With a private system, if someone has the insurance, they get the medical attention they need. Why sacrifice a perfectly good system with a few glitches for a complete overhaul. It’s simply not necessary.

To summarize the following points have been made in this opposition:

1-Universal Health Care implies there is no private solution as good.
2-Health Care problems can be repaired without system overhaul.
3-Fiscally responsible Government regulation and oversight can yield better results both fiscally and medically than universal health care.
4-Health care is a personal issue and should remain in the hands of the individual more than in the Governments.
5-Federalization of services often leads to a decline in quality.

The evidence is clear, a simple deferment to Universal Health Care is negligent of sound Capitalistic principles that have the potential to yield outstanding health care to many if not all Americans. Federal regulation is not universal health care but can beat the benefits of such a system without question.

Disclaimer: The view(s) and opionion(s) expressed in this article are for conteplation purposes and do not necessarily reflect those of the author.