Skip to main content

What "Free" Health Care for All Means

My doctor recently ordered a CAT scan of my chest. It took three days, from the time he made the appointment with the imaging service, to when he got back the results. Fortunately, everything was normal. This type of immediate service is not available in Canada, or Great Britain, which are often touted as models for health care.

Whatever you call it, Medicare for All, or Free Healthcare, or Single Payer (Government) System, this type of system is endorsed by most, if not all, of the Democratic candidates for president: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Bill de Blasio, Julian Castro and, with some reservations, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg.

Sounds nice and fair and why shouldn't a nation of our wealth have "free" health care also? Well, there are problems to be aware of, before you decide if you want this or not. And to make matters worse, there is actually a bill before the House of Representatives called H.R. 1384, "To establish an improved Medicare for All national health insurance program." I'll deal with that a little later. 

In the debates, Sanders pointed to the nation across the river from Detroit to shame Americans about health care not being treated as a "yooman right" in this country.

It's true that all Canadian citizens and legal residents (though not immigrants there illegally) get "free" health care, but only in the sense that you don't get a bill after seeing a doctor or visiting a hospital. Medical care is subsidized by taxes, but the price comes in another form as well -- rationing. A 2018 report from the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, found that wait times between seeing a general practitioner and a specialist average 19.8 weeks. That's the average. There are variations among specialties. Those hoping to see an orthopedist wait an average of 39 weeks in Nova Scotia, while those seeking an oncologist wait about 3.8 weeks.

Marc Palazzo, executive director of the Coalition Against Socialized Medicine writes: "Under such a system, faceless bureaucrats in Washington – rather than patients and doctors – would control nearly all healthcare decisions, from the doctor you can see to the medicines you are prescribed. And decisions about those prescriptions would be made with primary consideration going to the overall cost to the system rather than which drugs will be most effective for an individual patient’s situation. Access to medical procedures, doctors and treatments would similarly be subject to government spending caps. All of this decided behind closed doors!"

The cost of socializing America’s healthcare system is astounding; despite being championed as “free,” estimates put the price tag at over $32 trillion [over 10 years]. Even doubling today’s tax rates could not pay for it. (Current revenues from personal income tax are about $2.8 trillion a year). What’s more, the true costs are nearly impossible to calculate, given that it also covers all undocumented immigrants in the United States – a number estimated to be at least 11 million people.

Across the pond, where the people of Great Britain have their National Health Service, nearly 5 million people are waiting for appointments. Health care is provided by a single payer — the British government — and is funded by the taxpayer. All appointments and treatments are free to the patient (though paid for through taxes), as are almost all prescription drugs. The maximum cost of receiving any drug prescribed by the NHS is $12.

But, and there's a big but: Emergency room visits can take up to 12 hours; and British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States, according to Forbes Magazine. There are many other problems.

Sally C. Pipes goes on in Forbes to report: 

The NHS also routinely denies patients access to treatment. More than half of NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, which plan and commission health services within their local regions, are rationing cataract surgery. They call it a procedure of "limited clinical value." 
It's hard to see how a surgery that can prevent blindness is of limited clinical value. Delaying surgery can cause patients' vision to worsen -- and thus put them at risk of falls or being unable to conduct basic daily activities. [Note: I had cataract surgery in my right eye about four years ago; without it I'd probably not be able to drive, nor have 20/20 vision in that eye.]

To add to the problems, there is a shortage of doctors and nurses in Great Britain, the budget is under pressure, the average wait time for referrals is more than 60 days and more than 250,000 British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment. 

Patients needing surgery fare worse. The Guardian reports that there are 4.3 million patients on waiting lists, a 10-year high. "In May [2019], for example, 211,434 patients had been on the waiting list for more than six months, up from the 197,067 who were in that position a month before and up by almost half compared to a year earlier, the NHS England data shows."

But it's obvious that the Democratic party thinks they can run our health care system better than the Canadian or the Brits. Washington has been "fixing" our health care system since 1965. It was their fixes that made our insurance unaffordable and our care unavailable. 

The cost of free health care? Deane Waldman, M.D., M.B.A, in a report for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, reported this: 

In July 2018, Charles Blahous of Mercatus Center calculated the cost of single payer/”Medicare for All.” He reported a cost of $32.6 trillion over 10 years. This means H.R. 1384 will nearly double current unsustainable spending on healthcare, adding $3.2 trillion to the $3.5 trillion we expended for healthcare in 2018 (Blahous, 3). Funding “Medicare for All” would consume all the money we currently expend on other national priorities such as education, military, infrastructure, security, etc. Professor Blahous estimated that paying for “Medicare for All” would double both federal individual as well as corporate taxes (Blahous, 21)! 

I highly recommend you read this eight-page report. There are solutions to our healthcare system that do no require a total government takeover. Start with these reports herehere, here, and this comprehensive history and suggestions here

And finally, from one of my favorite economic authors: The Free Market Works in Health Care...When It's Allowed. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What happened when a Trump Supporter Challenged Me About the Wall

Vicky Alvear Schecter wrote in Medium | Poltics on Dec. 27, 2018 using her headline above. I thought it was pretty well written -- at least she made an attempt to keep her liberal bias out of it -- regardless of a few illogical fallacies

But she does make an attempt, in an effort to avoid her liberal bias, as she ponders  "...in order not to be accused by bias, I explained that I would only use conservative sources to prove my point."

To me, that's bias to start out with that premise. And I believe her premise is that she is against the wall. That's her stance. But she makes some good points, but some are skewed, even though she attempt to take a "conservative" approach, even by citing some "conservative" sources in her footnotes.

Here's the first problem: if she wanted to avoid bias, why not just stick to the the historical facts as written (when you can find them without bias), and not concern oneself with bias. "I must reject that becau…

Weekly wrap for Nov 9

After Thursday and Friday, it might seem the markets are down, but the weekly numbers tell a different story, with the three major indices up for the week. The Nasdaq, with its tech exposure, had the smallest increase. The tech sector is obviously under recent pressure. 

IndexNov 2Nov 9+/-%S&P 5002,723.062,781.01+ 57.95+ 2.12%Nasdaq7,356.997,406.90+ 49.91+ 0.67%DOW 3025,270.8325,989.30+ 718.47+ 2.84%
Over the last 12 months, the Dow is up 10.77 percent, the SP 500 up 7.6 percent, and the Nasdaq up 9.7 percent.  

The weekly chart of the SPY still indicates a long position in the broader market. (The blue line is the 34-week moving average; the red is the 13-week moving average).

















While the U.S. economy still seems to be just fine from most reports, investors seemed to worry about a couple of things on Thursday and Friday: 1) The Eurozone, 2) trade with China, and 3) the Fed and interest rates. Another topic of interest has been oil. 

First, it seems that the Fed has really not indicated …

U.S. Top Oil Producer, Thanks to Obama

\ You read that right.

The U.S. is now the largest oil producer in the world, according to the EIA, producing some 15 million BOE per day, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Remember back when Jimmy Carter said in 1979 the answer to our energy problems was to wear a warmer sweater...but you probably don't. He actually said this on national TV).

The United States is the top oil-producing country in the world, with an average of 14.86 million b/d, which accounts for 15.3% of the world's production. This is down from 15.12 million b/d in 2015, but it was enough to land the United States in the No. 1 spot, which it has held for the past four years running. (Source: Investopedia.)

Guess who takes credit for it? Granted, this increase in production began in 2012, but only because of private industry and the fact that the price of oil was at nearly all-time highs. And it dipped in 2016 because of Obama's anti-oil policies! 

But here he is again


Former President Barack Obama sure l…