Perception of the Universal Healthcare System by the Left Political Movement - Essay Example

1. Introduction A system of socialized medicine, or, as the Left prefers to call it, "universal healthcare", has been sitting on the proverbial political docket for almost a full century now in the United States. Over such a time, the common perception is that, somehow, the American healthcare system has deteriorated to a place of almost complete impotence. Now, the situation seems ripe for "change". Actual progress from the previously indefinite state of ideological disrepair seems at least likely, and the healthcare industry may, in fact, come under comprehensive governmental and bureaucratic control within the near future. As intellectually vacuous as any plan for this type of legislative takeover of the medical industry may be, it still attracts widespread adherence from those who know only to ask questions of why while strategically evading how. This is our present purpose: to examine the political and philosophical premises of the Left's motion toward a system of socialized medicine which (a) integrates business with government, (b) takes control away from doctors, and (c), in the end, takes control away from patients. In addition to presenting anecdotal evidence, I shall reveal the emptiness of the Left's claim that such a "universal healthcare system" is a "moral imperative", or a product of "social justice". Thus, finally, I will show that although the present system is not utopian, it is not a complete disaster, as utopias tend to be when transforms from just mere talk to reality. 2. Effects on the Society Our present system of healthcare, that of a mixed state, is already partially socialized. However, the principle of an individual's right to choose his healthcare coverage and costs, although buried under heaps of government regulation and red tape, still remains somewhere. Socialized medicine, in effect, proposes to remove the last pieces of the capitalism from which the nascent American healthcare system was born. Contrary to the Left's claims, capitalism makes for an overall better system: new drugs and surgical advances come from systems without excessive government control. The reason for this is that innovation is rewarded in such economic systems, instead of being punished by government regulations and controls. Capitalism encourages excellence in goods and services, and not deterioration under a system of faceless government bureaucracy. What the Left also carefully ignores is the fact that, very often, poor health is the result of poor decision-making of individuals-particularly those individuals who demand the most from healthcare. Socialized medicine, instead of fixing poor decisions, fixes only the results of these decisions, and so serves more as a band-aid for a situation which requires more invasive measures. The opposition's claim is that the American healthcare system is unequal and social justice requires change to socialized medicine: that while the rich have awesome healthcare, the poor get treated like dirt. The proper response to such a claim is to question how it may be supported with argument. One may claim that this philosophy is supported by some "natural right" theory: that people have a right to life. Nevertheless, a "right" to healthcare is not a proper application of the right to life. If one does not have money to pay for a decent house or medical services, and the government gives him a "right" to those things, where does the money come from Other citizens is the proper answer; in fact, it is the only answer. Most Americans would agree that the right to free speech does not denote that my right requires others to give me a microphone and an auditorium, but few (especially on the Left) would be willing to claim that the right to healthcare is somehow less important than the right to free speech-and no American would simply give me an auditorium and a microphone simply on the basis that I have a right to free speech. At best, the "right" to healthcare is a wish, insofar as "I wish everyone could have a decent house and medical services". 3. Effects on the Doctors Moving from philosophy, we arrive at practicality: the effect on doctors is horrendous in systems of socialized medicine. The fact is that doctors are not rewarded for their important role in societies: because they are essentially government employees, their salaries are reduced, and they are left with disproportionate salaries. On top of this, the long, arduous, and costly education required to become a doctor will become too tall of a mountain climb, and the summit not rewarding enough to reach. Even for those doctors who do find the motivation to become a doctor, the prospect of being a doctor will be equally unpalatable. Controlled by an ineffective, unwieldy bureaucracy, doctors will be unable to make the right decisions-those decisions which they feel, as experts, is best for their patients. Instead, these decisions will be made by bureaucrats who have no medical experience and no means of assessing the unique aspects of each particular situation. The opposing view here is that the HMO system has taken all control away from patients, and given too much to doctors-destroying the doctor-patient relationship. They might say that a "universal healthcare system" would give patients many more choices. There are many valid responses to this objection. One might respond by saying that a socialized system gives the illusion of patient choice, when it actually gives all control to the government to make crucial health decisions. And instead of fighting with a seemingly indestructible HMO, the patient will have to contend with the actually indestructible government bureaucracy in charge of handing out money. One might also say that socialized medicine does not solve the problem: instead of giving doctors and businesses some control and patients some control, it shifts all control to another entity. That is, the same problems will still arise, but the perpetrator will simply be somebody else. 4. Effects on the System Finally, we can deal with what is perhaps the most effective criticism of socialized healthcare: overburdening. A recent example of this phenomenon is the American housing market, which recently collapsed under the weight of indiscriminate lending. A similar situation is conceivable in the case of healthcare, with an overburdening of the system and a consequent, even more disastrous collapse. The potential of overburdening is magnified by the fact that, if covered, people will go to the doctor even if they do not need to, and will consequently become heavy users of the system. In other countries, there is anecdotal evidence of this. A friend of mine, a single mother with three children living in Canada, noticed about a year ago that her youngest son was behaving strangely. He would get severe headaches. After seeing a doctor, who told her nothing was wrong, he started having severe seizures. Someone advised her that he might have a brain tumor, and that she should have him get an MRI to check. However, in Canada, the wait for an MRI would be too long to risk. She offered to pay for an MRI, but the government-controlled doctors rejected the offer on the grounds that it was not allowed. Luckily, she used her dual citizenship to get an appointment with a medical agency in the United States. The subsequent MRI confirmed that her son did, indeed, have a potentially dangerous brain tumor. With the MRI results, she returned to Canada and was granted treatment for her son. Today, her son is progressing just fine; however, if she had decided to wait months for an MRI test, he most certainly would have died. The fact is that a wide array of healthcare options is already open to American citizens. Employers give health insurance, and people choose employment with such companies precisely for such benefits while sacrificing some of their salary. Additional plans are purchased by individuals who have no need to for an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. So, why should government repeal by law a citizen's freedom and individual rights by creating a full-blown socialist system The objection might come that health insurance are already high and rising rapidly; high deductibles make employer-subsidized programs expensive and employee health benefits systems are being shut down in a bad economy. It is unfair, after all, that hard-working Americans should not have a decent level of care. But the use of the word "unfair" here, italicized for emphasis, denotes a certain form of egalitarianism. Nevertheless, that egalitarianism is a corrupt ethical system is demonstrated by its aims: egalitarianism dictates that in a society where a majority are poor and dying, that everyone must be poor and dying, and so their happiness must be made evil. To call the healthcare system "unfair" is to define justice as a what is equal, and consequently, to turn what is good even for some into what is mediocre for everybody. 5. Conclusion What a socialized healthcare system proposes is a Leftist utopia: a place where there are an infinite amount of doctors, hospitals, and medical supplies, and where no one has to pay for any of them. However, in reality, what a socialized healthcare system means is an overburdened, bureaucratically-controlled, unwieldy system of impersonal care. Although it is a travesty that in one of the richest countries on Earth, millions are uninsured and cannot receive proper medical care, an ethical system of egalitarianism neither justifies change nor makes the situation any better. All that such a system can accomplish is the eventual ruin and mediocrity of the system. Such a system will deincentivize the industry, and overburden it to a point of devastating collapse. The best argument for such a system is that there is a "natural right" to healthcare. However, the absurdity of this claim is demonstrable whenever one thinks analogously with any civil right. At best, one can wish for good healthcare. But wishing for good healthcare will not help me, my friend, her dying child, or anyone else while we die waiting for it. Read More