Nationalizing Health Care

It has become clear that President Obama and Democrats in Congress intend to completely change the health care system in America. While their exact plan is unclear, what is clear is that the federal government will have a much larger role in the American health care system. In the western world, America is unique in that the private sector, not the government, plays the majority role in providing health care. But those with power in Washington today want that to change. They want to make our system similar to those in England, France, and Canada where the government supposedly makes health care "free."

Yet, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. While the health care systems in those countries are "free," those systems have resulted in rationing. Health care is rationed in those countries because there are not enough doctors, medical personnel, medical equipment, or drugs to meet the demand. Since governments only take in funds through taxes, their budgets are limited. These limited budgets mean some things can be provided for "free" but many goods and services simply are not available when the tax revenue runs out. For instance, millions of Canadians cannot find a family doctor and wait months, if not years, for simple surgeries. In France the supply of doctors is so limited that in the 2003 heat wave in that country 15,000 citizens died from a lack of care. In America's quasi-free market system, demand can be satisfied by profit seeking companies and hospitals that provide goods and services for a price.

Another factor to consider is the effect nationalizing health care will have on American medical innovation. The world is almost totally dependant on American medical innovations. Almost all the new drugs and medical equipment are created by American companies. The government run health care systems in the western world discourage innovation because there is no profit incentive to innovate. What company would spend millions of dollars developing the next cancer drug or a new surgical device if their government forces them to sell the product at a price so low costs cannot be recouped in order to provide everyone with "free" health care? In America pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Merck spend billions of each year developing new drugs because they can then turn around and sell those drugs for a profit. Those billions of dollars spent on research and development would not be spent under a government system since the government would inevitably set prices below costs, making any new development a money losing proposition. For instance the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas spends more on research and development than all of Canada.

To those who want to "be kind" and "help others" by having the government provide health care, you should ask yourself this question: What high quality good or service does the government provide at a low cost? There are none that come to mind. The postal service is broke and is chronically raising its prices as private sector companies UPS, Fed-Ex, and DHL have become masters at shipping packages all over the world at a low price. The government run rail service, Amtrak, has never turned a profit. In fact, in a glimpse of the future of American health care if the government takes control of it, one need only look at the government health care provided to wounded soldiers. In Veterans Affairs hospitals, the federal government provides "free" care to present and former soldiers. Yet those hospitals are in such horrid condition that the bureaucrats that run the hospitals have started to counsel some veterans that, rather than seeking additional care, they are better off dead. If the U.S. government cannot even provide decent care for military veterans, what makes anyone think they can provide care to the entire nation?

Any comments or questions can be received at whyyouareaconservative@gmail.com

~ The Conservative Guy