In truth, I am interested in arguments for and against Universal Health Care. I have not made up my mind on the issue. So here's what I'm going to do: I am going to make a decent attempt at building a case in favor of Universal Health Care, and I want you to 1. create or cite arguments that undermine or rebut the components of my case in favor of Universal Health Care or 2. post about how much you agree with it. Other related musings are welcome, too; everyone can play!
Status: False.
The reality is that Sweden is a living example of superior healthcare services, and it happens to be socialized with respect to health care. Look at the facts, and compare various facets of Swedish health care to those of US health care:
-Wikipedia (current article)
Still skeptical about how bad things really are in America? Read what CNN has to report about it.
Still skeptical about how much our current system is costing us compared to what we could save by socializing healthcare? Read this Libertarian's argument for socializing healthcare in today's America.
Still think competitive market forces always produce the best traits via the most efficient route? Then reflect on what competition has done to the pharmaceutical industry.
Free market forces are important in America, and I'm no Commie. But the reality is that while some things are best done at the individual level, and others at the state level, there remain others still, that may best be run by the federal government. For example: a centralized military, coinage, etc.
But think about how silly our jurisdictional categories are! What is a federal government? What is a "nation"? In ancient Greece we saw city-states, which were like sovereign nations the size of a city. Before the union of the states of America, each state functioned like its own nation. But then look at the UK - it functions very much like a cohesive nation, yet it is not. It is four nations (kingdoms?), united under a constitutional monarchy. But as you research the powers assigned to various levels of jurisdiction, you find that it is much more complicated than what I have described here. Is the EU a nation? 'Clearly not', we want to say, yet it regulates currency and to a certain degree transportation (military?), and there are other powers united under the EU, as well. What "is" the United Nations?
It seems to me that what a "nation" is, is arbitrarily determined by the papers and wills of the people constituting it. There is no God-given prescription for the powers that ought to be assigned to individuals, states (whatever those are...), "nations", international unions, etc. So what do people mean when they talk about how thus and such is "not the federal government's responsibility"? Perhaps they mean that the United States constitution reserves thus and such a power for the states. If this is the case, then so what? We can amend that bad boy! We shouldn't be after the answer to the question "what would the founding fathers do?".
What we should be after is the answer to questions like, "at what level of governmental jurisdiction can we get thus and such done most efficiently, with the best results, in the way that protects the most individual rights possible?".
And when it comes to healthcare in today's America, I here contend that the federal government seems the most fit to accomplish the ends that we all want. For example, Universal Health Care could,
1. Increase Competitiveness of American Businesses
The thought of having to shoulder the cost of employee healthcare motivates businesses to outsource their workforces to other countries. Paring down the overhead of businesses helps contribute to leaner business models, which will result in businesses competing more and more on the quality of their products and their prices. This will help companies to compete with each other inside the US, as well as with those outside the US that already do not have to shoulder the added overhead that employee healthcare brings.
2. Increase Health of American Workers and Citizens
When people are left uncovered by healthcare, they get sick. Sick people spread germs and thereby infringe on the health of others. Healthy people are more fit to get jobs and contribute to our economy. Whether we like it or not, our health is symbiotic. Let's democratically agree to take care of everybody and thereby protect ourselves. Let's enable ourselves to get preventative care, and thereby stay healthy more often, keeping ourselves in school and at work more often.
3. Balance the Use of Healthcare
Knowing I can get healthcare at any time might help me to relax and go in when I need to (and only when I need to). This would be better than never going to the doctor in order to avoid co-payments, or going all the time to try and get my money's worth from an expensive plan, or from a nice plan that my company pays for, which I know I will only have temporarily.
4. Keep Track of Medical History Records Across the Board
A nationwide healthcare system would allow us to centralize the database of medical records, cutting the volume of paperwork involved in changing doctors or getting help from specialists. Not to mention the fact that this would help us keep track of such information in the first place, so that doctors can have access to important information about you wherever you become sick or injured, or whether you go to a specialist you don't normally visit.
5. Mitigate Fraud
Centralizing our resources, including the database of medical records, could simplify a lot of processes and enable fraudulent cases to be systemically flagged immediately. People we agree ought not be part of the system, such as individuals present in our country by means forbidden by our laws, could be easily flagged when they turn up in emergency rooms. The level of care we give such individuals, and the protocol guiding how we handle such situations, could be topics of discussion.
6. Decrease Costs
Peoples who have decided to socialize their healthcare systems have wound up saving money because of the ability to cut overheads, centralize resources, provide preventative care, and... I could easily go on.
7. Increase the Freedom of Doctor's Treatment Plans
Insurance companies, being motivated by profit, impose severe restrictions on treatment plans. Giving doctors the freedom to be flexible with patient treatment plans would ignite innovation, motivate preventative measures, and increase the overall health of the country.
8. Mitigate the Various Ill Effects of Profit-Driven Medical Practices
The most profitable practices are not always the best ones. The free market has made it more profitable to create new, questionable drugs than to make continued use of trusted, generic drugs. Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors to push their drugs rather than the best drugs for the job. Flashy marketing obfuscates drug-related information before it reaches the public eye, contributing to image-influenced decision-making, rather than information-driven decision-making.
Drug patent laws often mean that the best drugs are too expensive for the people who could benefit the most from them. Socializing health care would encourage medical professionals and researchers to share information in the name of social progress, rather than guard the findings of their research in order to profit from them.
The lobbying power of the insurance companies would be eradicated, freeing our politicians from the yoke of the obligations foisted on them by huge, profit-driven voting blocks. These same voters would naturally reorganize themselves into the categories that other citizens naturally fit into.
The giant bureaucracies housed by the insurance companies would be eradicated, reducing the number of workers whose jobs are spent administrating rather than generating.
I could easily go on.
9. Increase the Vocational Freedom of Individuals & Motivate Entrepreneurism
Socializing health care would contribute to the freedom of individuals to pursue careers they are passionate about, rather than those that happen to provide health care. For example, rather than feeling strapped for health care and therefore motivated to take a job as an employee at somewhere like Starbucks, individuals would be that much more motivated to start businesses of their own or pursue those jobs that don't always provide health care, increasing vocational freedom and entrepreneurism. This will be especially true for those with chronically, or terminally, ill family members. Such individuals will be free from feeling driven to find the job with the best health care.
10. Improve Responses to Regional Outbreaks, Natural Disasters, Rare Illnesses, and New Illnesses
Socialized health care would provide an ideal platform for coordinating the skills of various medical professionals with the medical needs of entire communities impacted by regional outbreaks or disasters. Those with rare diseases could be much more readily paired with the professionals whose specialty is well-suited to the problem. Medical information could be broadcast or spread by other means to those areas for which it is most relevant at a given time. Medical mentors and coaches could be utilized to promote general health practices and mitigate harmful ones. The livelihood of medical professionals wouldn't be tied to a specific set of patients, or to a geographic region, giving them the freedom to go where their skill is needed most.
• Socializing healthcare doesn't mean that the private sector is forbidden to attempt to produce superior plans (think of private schools).
Universal Health Care could be done poorly. And depending on who gets elected and what follows, that may end up happening in America. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and Sweden is living proof of that fact. Democratic forces could hold politicians accountable, and we could all rally with talented leaders, who could devise and implement a plan that works.
We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so let's agree to use this resource to accomplish something beautiful.
See also:
• John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. "The Case for Universal Health Care"
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, "Hidden Costs, Value Lost"
How Can I Build a Case For Universal Health Care, When the Very Concept Eviscerates the Notion of a Free Market?
Claim: Eliminating competition in the arena of healthcare will result in a decline in quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and other desirable traits.Status: False.
The reality is that Sweden is a living example of superior healthcare services, and it happens to be socialized with respect to health care. Look at the facts, and compare various facets of Swedish health care to those of US health care:
-Wikipedia (current article)
Still skeptical about how bad things really are in America? Read what CNN has to report about it.
Still skeptical about how much our current system is costing us compared to what we could save by socializing healthcare? Read this Libertarian's argument for socializing healthcare in today's America.
Still think competitive market forces always produce the best traits via the most efficient route? Then reflect on what competition has done to the pharmaceutical industry.
Free market forces are important in America, and I'm no Commie. But the reality is that while some things are best done at the individual level, and others at the state level, there remain others still, that may best be run by the federal government. For example: a centralized military, coinage, etc.
But think about how silly our jurisdictional categories are! What is a federal government? What is a "nation"? In ancient Greece we saw city-states, which were like sovereign nations the size of a city. Before the union of the states of America, each state functioned like its own nation. But then look at the UK - it functions very much like a cohesive nation, yet it is not. It is four nations (kingdoms?), united under a constitutional monarchy. But as you research the powers assigned to various levels of jurisdiction, you find that it is much more complicated than what I have described here. Is the EU a nation? 'Clearly not', we want to say, yet it regulates currency and to a certain degree transportation (military?), and there are other powers united under the EU, as well. What "is" the United Nations?
It seems to me that what a "nation" is, is arbitrarily determined by the papers and wills of the people constituting it. There is no God-given prescription for the powers that ought to be assigned to individuals, states (whatever those are...), "nations", international unions, etc. So what do people mean when they talk about how thus and such is "not the federal government's responsibility"? Perhaps they mean that the United States constitution reserves thus and such a power for the states. If this is the case, then so what? We can amend that bad boy! We shouldn't be after the answer to the question "what would the founding fathers do?".
What we should be after is the answer to questions like, "at what level of governmental jurisdiction can we get thus and such done most efficiently, with the best results, in the way that protects the most individual rights possible?".
And when it comes to healthcare in today's America, I here contend that the federal government seems the most fit to accomplish the ends that we all want. For example, Universal Health Care could,
1. Increase Competitiveness of American Businesses
The thought of having to shoulder the cost of employee healthcare motivates businesses to outsource their workforces to other countries. Paring down the overhead of businesses helps contribute to leaner business models, which will result in businesses competing more and more on the quality of their products and their prices. This will help companies to compete with each other inside the US, as well as with those outside the US that already do not have to shoulder the added overhead that employee healthcare brings.
2. Increase Health of American Workers and Citizens
When people are left uncovered by healthcare, they get sick. Sick people spread germs and thereby infringe on the health of others. Healthy people are more fit to get jobs and contribute to our economy. Whether we like it or not, our health is symbiotic. Let's democratically agree to take care of everybody and thereby protect ourselves. Let's enable ourselves to get preventative care, and thereby stay healthy more often, keeping ourselves in school and at work more often.
3. Balance the Use of Healthcare
Knowing I can get healthcare at any time might help me to relax and go in when I need to (and only when I need to). This would be better than never going to the doctor in order to avoid co-payments, or going all the time to try and get my money's worth from an expensive plan, or from a nice plan that my company pays for, which I know I will only have temporarily.
4. Keep Track of Medical History Records Across the Board
A nationwide healthcare system would allow us to centralize the database of medical records, cutting the volume of paperwork involved in changing doctors or getting help from specialists. Not to mention the fact that this would help us keep track of such information in the first place, so that doctors can have access to important information about you wherever you become sick or injured, or whether you go to a specialist you don't normally visit.
5. Mitigate Fraud
Centralizing our resources, including the database of medical records, could simplify a lot of processes and enable fraudulent cases to be systemically flagged immediately. People we agree ought not be part of the system, such as individuals present in our country by means forbidden by our laws, could be easily flagged when they turn up in emergency rooms. The level of care we give such individuals, and the protocol guiding how we handle such situations, could be topics of discussion.
6. Decrease Costs
Peoples who have decided to socialize their healthcare systems have wound up saving money because of the ability to cut overheads, centralize resources, provide preventative care, and... I could easily go on.
7. Increase the Freedom of Doctor's Treatment Plans
Insurance companies, being motivated by profit, impose severe restrictions on treatment plans. Giving doctors the freedom to be flexible with patient treatment plans would ignite innovation, motivate preventative measures, and increase the overall health of the country.
8. Mitigate the Various Ill Effects of Profit-Driven Medical Practices
The most profitable practices are not always the best ones. The free market has made it more profitable to create new, questionable drugs than to make continued use of trusted, generic drugs. Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors to push their drugs rather than the best drugs for the job. Flashy marketing obfuscates drug-related information before it reaches the public eye, contributing to image-influenced decision-making, rather than information-driven decision-making.
Drug patent laws often mean that the best drugs are too expensive for the people who could benefit the most from them. Socializing health care would encourage medical professionals and researchers to share information in the name of social progress, rather than guard the findings of their research in order to profit from them.
The lobbying power of the insurance companies would be eradicated, freeing our politicians from the yoke of the obligations foisted on them by huge, profit-driven voting blocks. These same voters would naturally reorganize themselves into the categories that other citizens naturally fit into.
The giant bureaucracies housed by the insurance companies would be eradicated, reducing the number of workers whose jobs are spent administrating rather than generating.
I could easily go on.
9. Increase the Vocational Freedom of Individuals & Motivate Entrepreneurism
Socializing health care would contribute to the freedom of individuals to pursue careers they are passionate about, rather than those that happen to provide health care. For example, rather than feeling strapped for health care and therefore motivated to take a job as an employee at somewhere like Starbucks, individuals would be that much more motivated to start businesses of their own or pursue those jobs that don't always provide health care, increasing vocational freedom and entrepreneurism. This will be especially true for those with chronically, or terminally, ill family members. Such individuals will be free from feeling driven to find the job with the best health care.
10. Improve Responses to Regional Outbreaks, Natural Disasters, Rare Illnesses, and New Illnesses
Socialized health care would provide an ideal platform for coordinating the skills of various medical professionals with the medical needs of entire communities impacted by regional outbreaks or disasters. Those with rare diseases could be much more readily paired with the professionals whose specialty is well-suited to the problem. Medical information could be broadcast or spread by other means to those areas for which it is most relevant at a given time. Medical mentors and coaches could be utilized to promote general health practices and mitigate harmful ones. The livelihood of medical professionals wouldn't be tied to a specific set of patients, or to a geographic region, giving them the freedom to go where their skill is needed most.
• Socializing healthcare doesn't mean that the private sector is forbidden to attempt to produce superior plans (think of private schools).
Universal Health Care could be done poorly. And depending on who gets elected and what follows, that may end up happening in America. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and Sweden is living proof of that fact. Democratic forces could hold politicians accountable, and we could all rally with talented leaders, who could devise and implement a plan that works.
We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so let's agree to use this resource to accomplish something beautiful.
See also:
• John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. "The Case for Universal Health Care"
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, "Hidden Costs, Value Lost"
