Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?
Overview/BackgroundIt's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada. The Obama administration passed a health care bill that takes the U.S. part of the way towards a government-controlled system. How far it takes us is up for dispute. The new law is sure to be debated and modified for years to come. This debate discusses whether a complete government takeover of health care should be undertaken.
The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 45 million
(although this number includes illegal immigrants, etc.).
Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing
to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs
themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no
health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not
covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums. In all fairness, the 45 million uninsured number
has been called into question since in includes illegal
immigrants, people making over $75K who choose not to buy coverage, and others who have options for coverage but choose not to
get it. The true number of people without options is closer to 15 million.
Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.
Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses
only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they
will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums
have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy.
Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A
simpler government-controlled system
that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over
and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system
generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval
department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent
co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's
especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A
universal healthcare plan
would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or
wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every
We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a
lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all,
it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past
medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means
we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping?
How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A
centralized national system would allow
us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis
efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage
if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never
be a problem.
Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice
Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted
by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting
sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A
simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on
doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to
an already mentally-draining profession.
Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early
when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because
of the costs.
Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego
doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at
an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV
tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the
system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system
would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.
People will have an easier time starting their own business or working part-time if health insurance is covered.
One of the things that keeps Americans tied indefinitely to their current, full-time positions is the fear of losing
health insurance, or the fear of paying some outrageous amount per month for a new individual/family policy. This amounts
to a bit of modern day slavery, since people with kids or some potentially expensive health condition can't easily
leave their jobs. Many Americans would like to work part-time so they can spend more time with kids, pursue a new degree,
or spend time do the fun things they love before they die. Others have a great business idea but can't afford the startup
costs & risks when health care is added in. Universal health care provides these opportunities.
Patients with pre-existing conditions can still get health coverage.
One of the biggest weaknesses of our current health care systems is that patients with a past or current medical condition such
as cancer or asthma often cannot obtain affordable health coverage. Some insurance companies won't even give a policy to
such individuals, or if they do, they will cover everything BUT their past diagnosed conditions. Anyone with an expensive
illness or disease must then often face one of two choices: use up all their own money, or leave the condition untreated. In
a universal system, no one with a pre-existing condition would be denied coverage. People could change jobs without fearing the
loss of health insurance.
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently;
do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code
handling something as complex as health care?
Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security
Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of
every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar
cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a
which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How
about the U.S. income tax system? When originally
implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government
published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess
with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles.
This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state
residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV
and didn't have to stand in line?
If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government
to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any
private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives
and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed
up by competitors. Consider the health care bill passed by the Obama
administration in 2009--it's over 2000 pages and barely scratches
the surface for how the law will be implemented!
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes;
expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in
other areas such as defense, education, etc.
There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such
as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred
dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more?
If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always
led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set
hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who
can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private
sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about
cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government
paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have
to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart
removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for
elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is
required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about
a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you
have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical
procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in
controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for
a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get
their health care
needs taken care of.
The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and
special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government.
In President Obama's push for health insurance "reform", we saw firsthand how politics rears its ugly head. In order to
secure 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats put in special payoffs for Nebraska (the "Cornhusker kickback"), Louisiana
(the "Louisiana Purchase"), and Florida in order to secure votes from reluctant senators. In other words, the merits
of the bill and the good of the nation took a backseat to politics as usual. Another example was the proposed tax on
"Cadillac Health Plans", which was one of the few things in the 2000+ page bill that economists predicted would actually
help reduce overall costs. Unfortunately, Obama's biggest political supporters--big unions--were set to be hit. So of course, a deal
was struck to exempt his union supporters, whereas non-union members in the same boat still faced the tax hikes. With something
as important as health care, can we really have politicians and special interests taking power? How long before funding/regulatory
decisions on certain
drugs, treatments, research, etc. are decided based on those who give the most political support, as opposed to which will save
lives and improve quality of life?
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will
be several times what they are now.
Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything
else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced
by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a
minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if
we had to pay
for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical
care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better
if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses.
It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying
problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and
government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse
emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available.
This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to
help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep
costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when
drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will
only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for
medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those
who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch
potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor.
Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward
the ones who don't?
In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to
be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment.
Regardless of whether medical costs are paid for publicly or privately, the costs are extremely expensive and going
higher every year. Rising costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced treatments, physician & nurses' salaries,
and so on all contribute to the skyrocketing overall cost. Politicians are likely to jump in and try to limit costs
by putting in price caps on various items they deem "excessively profitable." This
de-incentivizes businesses from investing in new drugs or medical
advances. As an example, new drugs often take over a decade to develop, test, and pass FDA standards. That means
companies must spend sometimes millions of dollars over the development period without grossing dollar one! The only
thing that keeps companies in the market at all is the potentially lucrative payout of that patent along with the ability to
sell their new drugs at whatever cost the market will bear. Drug price controls, or even the mere
threat of price controls, will likely dissuade many companies from taking on the new investment. Consequently,
medical advances are likely to curtail.
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and
new patient record creation.
A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area
would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital
record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A
number of these unemployed would be able
to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to
once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge
amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the
Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't
a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of
medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as
those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one
of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from
putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. A recent
study showed that nearly 1/3 of
doctors would leave the profession if the Obama health care bill was put into law.
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the
government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually
invites more lawsuits.
When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an
injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the
U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for
the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for
frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality
is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys
know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive
damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will
a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to
a further loss of personal freedoms.
With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in
a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit
eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they
no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high.
Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the
While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will
likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private.
Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of
patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what.
Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential
rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will
have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be
eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as
expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain
treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get
liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you?
Just think of the whole can of worms opened by the abortion &
birth control issue? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional
Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment.
Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments
that we can currently receive
immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first,
and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's
politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the
retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically
shorter. Now that people are regular living into
their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that
all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried
to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away
your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all
was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it.
Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having
the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their
re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will
ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time,
the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and
an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private
practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt
levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the
capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
Related LinksReader Comments
A 20-Point Solution to Health Care Crisis
Why We the People Don't Want Obamacare
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
ProCon.org - Right to Health Care
Universal Health Insurance
Why Your Stitches Cost 00
Universal Health Care: Grassroots
Free Health Care
Government: If It Ain't Broke, They'll Break It
Those Fantastic Socialist Medical Systems
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Health Care Based on Good Will, Not Profit
Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters
Wikipedia: Universal Health Care Debate
The Individual Medical Investment Account
The Absolute Truth about Health Care Reform
Written by: Joe Messerli
Page Last Updated: