Nationalized Socialized Healthcare

What is Universal Health Care


More Americans are favoring a tax-payer funded government administered health care delivery system to replace the privately owned and administered system we now use. Universal health care is a form of health coverage which is provided by a government so that all of its citizens have access to health services. Canada, Western Europe, parts of South America, and Russia have programs described as universal health care.

With universal health care, you will get to see any doctor you choose. "No you don't." say opponents, who feel our choices will be limited, as will our access to different treatment options. "Doctors will make the same amount of money, or more." say the proponents. With universal health care, doctors will be salaried. Incentive will be stifled. Med schools enrollment will drop, according to the negative spin. Private health insurance will be a thing of the past and Blue Cross, Aetna, and all others will disappear. HMOs, PPOs, will be vague memories.

In this country where we enjoy the best healthcare in the world, bar none, there are those among us banging the drum to change it, it’s like saying that you are sick of filet mignon, the king of steaks, and prefer liver.

In this country if you require hospital care you will not be denied. I have yet to hear of it happening. I do hear of the emergency rooms being filled all the time from such things as people with colds, flu, stomach aches, sprained ankles, etc to things that actually require the patient to be there.

Women in England have been denied needed breast cancer treatment because of cost. Is this what you want to hear, God forbid, it should happen to you or a loved one?

Here are a few things that counter arguments for socialized healthcare:


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?

"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.

Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

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.

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.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

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.

Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, soft drinks, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government.

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.

Long waiting periods, eventual loss of doctor choice, treatment restrictions, some pinhead in government, a "Gate Keeper," dictating what you will be allowed as opposed to what your doctor knows you require and in some cases no treatment at all because of costs.....

I believe in keeping the federal government as small as possible. A large federal government is dangerous to freedom.

A national health system puts a huge part of the U.S. economy under government control and expands the government's reach into new areas of each citizen's life. Further, the government isn't noted for doing anything efficiently.

Some Canadians say their national health system works only because U.S. hospitals are close by. Rather than wait in line for service from the national health system, many Canadians who need heart surgery or treatment for cancer drive across the border to hospitals in Cleveland and Detroit and pay for treatment.

National health in this country would save far less than the proponents claim, because Congress wouldn't make hard choices to keep the costs down. And national health might reduce research and innovation in drugs and treatment.

I suspect that if we get it, we all will be as happy with what we get as Medicare participants are with their benefits and that it will control costs about as well as Medicare has. Given all the complaints about Medicare and its rising cost, that isn't a comforting thought. --Mike Clowes is the editorial director of InvestmentNews.

"If Obama candidly said he is trying to put America on the path to government-run health care, it would excite exactly the sort of massive national grassroots opposition needed to kill his plan. So what Obama is doing is paving a one-way street to a socialized medicine while expressly denying he is doing so -- and while accusing those who point out what he is doing of being untruthful." --columnist Terence Jeffrey

"It's hard to know whether President Obama's health care 'reform' is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health care 'reform' almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite." --columnist Robert Samuelson

"A government bureaucracy controlling your medical care is likely to combine the efficiency of the post office with the compassion of the IRS. Imagine a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles -- but to secure lifesaving treatment for yourself, a spouse or child, rather than simply to obtain a driver's license. What a nightmare." --columnist Carol Platt Liebau

“The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective..”

Think about it.

Britain's Dan Hannan: Nationalized healthcare has made us iller.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment by Josie on June 19, 2009 at 4:42pm Great points, Gordon.

The pressing & unanswered question is this: so, if socialized medicine/universal health care is so great, why are the people coming to America to get treated?