All people want to live a long and healthy life, and to this end people will seek out care that helps achieve this goal. Undeniably, the best health care is a healthy lifestyle. Eating correctly, exercising, not smoking, drinking in moderation, not doing unnecessary drugs or engaging in risky behaviors are all essential factors to being healthy. However, regardless of whether or not a person lives healthy or not does not dismiss the possibility that a calamity such as a car accident, cancer, organ trouble, broken bone, stuck by lighting, etc. that requires medical attention can befall any person at any time. Such a circumstance can occur at no fault of the individual, yet dramatically change the course of an individual?s life or even end it altogether. Thereby, whether or not an individual follows a healthy approach to life or is the victim of circumstance, the fact that eventually each person dies cannot be surmounted. Consequently, when people talk about health care, they are really referring to the quality of life and the best means to obtain it.
Health and quality of life is defined individually since the choice to abide by healthy guidelines is the choice of the individual. Meaning that while some behaviors may be harmful to the individual and others beneficial, each individual has to decide what behaviors to engage in that will serve the needs of the individual best. Since we all will die eventually, and since it is the individual who will suffer ultimately from the decisions made, it is the responsibility of the individual to live a healthy lifestyle and avoid accidents when possible. Thereupon, responsibility for quality of life resides within the individual; it is incumbent upon the individual to dedicate himself to maintaining that quality by designating appropriate resources for him to realize his ideal. He can buy insurance, he could quit risky behaviors, exercise more, etc. However, the individual is under no compulsion to do so. He could do nothing. But, if the individual fails to prepare for his own health, he cannot reasonably expect that some one else should. To expect another to be obligated to care for your needs is entitlement.
Sadly, no better example to illustrate the notion of entitlement exists then the arguments put forth by some to promote a universal health care system run by the government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given power to offer health care. Nevertheless, under the parental guise of compassion, supporters of a universal system believe it is the duty of society, via the government, to provide a minimal form of health care to all citizens.
The believers in universal health care trust that if government was overseeing all health care that it would solve the problems of health care being too expensive and unavailable to all. The belief is if the government ran health care, it would be the equivalent of a single payer system, where government would have a monopoly on prices and could set them at whatever level desired, thereby making health care more affordable. A single payer system is also promoted to reduce costs in billing paperwork and be more efficient. Finally and most important, supporters of universal health care point out the humanity of caring for anyone who is ill. Thus, for supporters of universal government health care, the problem of providing a higher quality of life is solved by spreading the responsibility of individual health care equally amongst everyone. Although this is the essence of entitlement, in health care, supporters find nothing wrong mandating those who can afford to pay should take care of those who cannot.
Unfortunately, while the goal of those who support universal health care is a noble one, it is not the correct path to follow. In order to provide for the greatest care to the most people, government should be completely removed from health care. Instead of a government run system where profits would be non-existent, a free market approach will allow costs to stabilize and even move lower. Consider the following points:
Health care is primarily so expensive because government is involved in so much of the industry already. The most obvious of governmental interventions in the health care industry are the programs of Medicare and Medicaid. These are health care programs directly run by the government. The overwhelming majority of participants in these programs are the poor, the elderly, or the infirm. These are the people that supporters of universal care typify when addressing the need for universal care, as it seems to provoke the most emotional response. Yet, in order to pay for health care for whomever is in these programs, the government taxes workers. Now if the taxes collected could outpace the money spent on these programs, the system could sustain. However, this is not the case. As the population ages, there are fewer workers paying in relation to those who receive benefits. In addition, as the government extends coverage for new procedures and services, the gap between revenue and debt only widens. In order to continue these programs, the government has to borrow money. Consequently, as if helping the weakest of society is supposed to overrule economic realities, the programs of Medicaid and Medicare continue at a loss. The simple fact that these programs cannot be run successfully is evidence enough that a government run universal system would fail, but this is not the only reason why universal health care should be rejected.
Government also causes health care costs to be high through its regulations as much as its direct involvement in the market. For instance, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 mandates that medical care cannot be refused by any medical facility to any patient, whether the individual can pay or not. Obviously, the medical industry cannot operate by giving away free services, so costs for those who can't pay is passed to those that can pay in the from of higher bills and higher premiums from insurance companies. While this one regulation alone accounts for a significant increase in prices for everyone as well as provides no incentive for anyone to ever pay for medical treatment, there are countless other governmental regulations that put affordable medical care out of the reach of many.
Meanwhile, another ridiculous cost of health care is associated to promoting designer drugs versus generic. Drug companies spend millions more promoting the latest drug then was used in the actual research of the drug. While this may be a contentious business practice, and lead to price increases generally, government is to blame in its relationship to the drug companies when it becomes a customer. Government suggests and even mandates that certain drugs and vaccines be administered. This influence can sell million of doses and keep some drug manufactures permanently afloat, which would otherwise be insolvent. By acting as customer, government is interrupting the free market system and ultimately responsible for contributing to higher prices overall.
Consequently, with so much government intervention into the health care market it is nearly impossible for prices to come down because true competition cannot exist. Moreover, since competition cannot exist, the delivery of poor quality health care is permitted, as bad doctors are rewarded in kind with excellent doctors. Thereupon, the only real solution to providing quality health care is to remove government from the health care equation. If the free market is allow to rule health care, prices will drop, quality will improve as bad doctors are forced out of the market, lawsuits will decrease as a result of bad doctors leaving the market, the government won't go bankrupt trying to run a system it cannot afford, and lastly, people can decide for themselves what lifestyle they wish to pursue and still find solace in knowing there will be no sacrifice in the quality of life.
|