Universal Health Care: Good as It Sounds?

[Adam's Apple]

Universal Health Care Spreads to Far East
Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak , The Medicine Men
January 22, 2007

If we in California and the United States had wings and infinite funds, we could fly the best available health care to everyone here, there, and everywhere.

The ideological concept of "universal care" looks right, sounds moral, and feels good.

California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger deserves some credit for trying something bold. The problem is that history shows these programs do not work. They have failed in Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden.

Coverage has become too costly in Massachusetts in less than a year.

The etiology of health-care fever is always insufficient funds. The governor's plan is estimated to cost 12 billion a year. But if you believe that number, we have a long wide concrete bridge over Newport Bay to sell you for 23 bucks.

for full article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/22/123737.shtml

 

[Hobbit]

If we had universal health care similar to Canada or Great Britain, I'd likely be dead or dying. A few years ago, I had an 'elective' surgury to remove a cyst that was causing me discomfort. I had it 4 weeks after diagnosis, though I could have gotten it sooner (wanted to wait until school let out). Had I been under a universal health care system, I would have had to wait months, or even years. The 'cyst' turned out to be cancer. Had I waited that long, it may very well have metasticized (sp?) and that particular type of cancer cannot be cured beyond that point. We have the best health care system in the world, and most of it can be contributed to the fact that it's a free market economy.

 

[William Joyce]

It probably works OK in places like Sweden because it's comfortably ethnically/culturally homogenous. In the U.S., I think it would be a disaster. You would have certain individuals and populations sucking it for all it was worth, while others would discipline themselves toward healthier living, which essentially makes for yet another wealth transfer. I'm not saying there isn't the occasional case of merit, but for a society to invest in those cases, it's got to have some sense that it's appreciated. For instance, I doubt a Swedish worker at the Volvo plant is angry about the fact that a Swedish grandmother is having her expensive testing for some disease done at his expense. In fact, he's probably happy to do it. But when a hard-working, English-speaking citizen here has to pay for the fraudulent medical claims of an illegal, Spanish-speaking Hispanic who hates the native population anyway, it's a different story.

In other words, there's "good freeloading" and "bad freeloading," and universal health care in the U.S. would have much more of the latter than the former. That is why I would oppose it.

 

[Roopull]

Remember, the goal isn't to provide healthcare.


It is to get re-elected.

Remember that.