Proponents of
socialized
healthcare like
to characterize
its private
provision as
callous and
uncaring --
prioritizing the
patients’ money
over their lives
and permitting
those without
money to suffer
and die.
However, this is
blatantly
untrue, and the
argument against
socialized
healthcare goes
much further
than this.
Socialized
healthcare is
guilty
of the very
fault
that private
healthcare is
alleged to have.
Under government
healthcare,
government
providers
prioritize their
own cost savings
above the lives
and well-being
of their
patients.
In a private
healthcare
system with no
government
interference,
anyone needing
healthcare would
receive it.
Those unable to
pay could rely
on the services
of private
charities and
charitable
doctors. In
small towns,
doctors are able
to serve the
poorest patients
by engaging in
voluntary price
discrimination
whereby they
charge wealthier
patients higher
prices while the
poorer ones pay
what they can.
This practice is
necessary in
order that
small-town
doctors can stay
in business and
serve all
patients in need
-- but
government
antitrust laws
have frequently
cracked down on
this practice.
The free market
has numerous
creative
solutions to
ensure that for
all those who
demand a
particular good
or service there
will be a
sufficient
supply of that
good or service.
But with a sole
government
provider of
healthcare, the
incentives of
both the
patients and the
providers
change. The
patients --
having paid
their taxes --
are seemingly
entitled by law
to unlimited
healthcare
services, and
they consider
themselves so
entitled. While
in a private
system, patients
would have
incentives to
keep costs down
by pursuing only
necessary
medical
services,
patients in a
socialized
system would
often be trying
to get as much
healthcare as
possible for the
fixed amount
that they
already paid in
taxes. With
everyone
demanding the
maximum on
healthcare,
government
supply would
naturally be
insufficient to
meet the demand.
Thus, what began
as a system
based on the
premise that
everyone has a
“right” to
healthcare
becomes in fact
a system of
rationed care,
where
the government
decides who will
get treated and
who will not.
Hence, you have
people waiting
months for care
as in the
socialized
healthcare
systems of Great
Britain and
Canada.
Under a
socialized
system, a
patient with a
life-threatening
illness would be
placed on a
waiting list --
usually for
several months
-- just for an
initial visit.
This government
system has
prioritized its
money over
actual
healthcare. This
prioritization
is not the
government
officials being
malicious;
rather, it is an
economic
necessity given
the incentives
created by
socialized
medicine. After
all, there are
plenty of people
with
life-threatening
illnesses, who
may
already
have waited
a long period of
time to get
treatment, and
the government
only has so much
money to spend.
As the
government is a
monopoly
provider of
healthcare,
patients have no
other recourse
but to wait --
even if they
could afford to
pay the full
cost of private
treatment.
Many
Canadian
patients
currently use
the still
partially
private American
health care
system as a
safety valve in
such cases. But
if the United
States
government
foolishly
nationalizes
healthcare, this
safety valve
would be gone,
and both
countries’
healthcare
systems would be
in crisis.
Contrast this
with what would
happen in a
fully private
system. A
patient with
cancer would
immediately
get a
diagnosis and
treatment from
one of many
for-profit
healthcare
providers if he
could afford to
pay. If he
could not afford
to pay, he could
still benefit
from the
generosity of
many private
charities and
price-discriminating
doctors.
Furthermore, in
a private
system, the rate
of medical
progress is
tremendously
high, leading to
increasingly
effective
treatments and
cures for
life-threatening
illnesses. In a
socialized
system, there is
no incentive for
individuals to
innovate;
indeed, highly
bureaucratized
government
healthcare
discourages
innovation,
claiming it too
costly and
failing to
recognize the
possible
long-term
benefits. After
all, new drugs
and treatment
methods have a
high initial
likelihood of
failure – and an
already strained
socialized
healthcare
system will be
highly resistant
to bearing those
costs. But in a
free market,
private
individuals can
choose to
personally bear
the risk of
their possibly
failing; they
will only choose
to do this,
however, if they
are assured that
they can profit
and their
innovations
succeed.
In a private
healthcare
system, I
believe that the
healthcare
providers would
find ways to
save
individuals’
lives at costs
that those
individuals
could afford.
With government
healthcare,
however, an
inevitable
tradeoff between
money and lives
would exist.
Only where
genuine
consumer choice
is
available can
such a tradeoff
be eliminated.
Socialized
Healthcare: When Money Trumps Life