Healthcare Is Not a Right. It's a Commodity

Complimentary Story
    You have the inalienable right to think, speak freely, and pursue happiness.  You assume the right to exercise faith in any religion you desire, because no one should dictate or prohibit your inherent capacity to “believe” in something.  You have the right to life, only in that it is not unjustly or maliciously taken from you by another human being.  But you do not have the right to mandate that others tend to your needs.  

   Medical care necessitates specialized training and education that can be offered to assist people with a NEED that they cannot meet themselves.  Healthcare, therefore, is a SERVICE.  And because of this classification, it is never free.  Whether it is through the utilization of private insurance, a tax-funded government program, or a bushel of apples, someone always pays.  You need to eat in order to survive, but when was the last time you showed up at your local farmer’s market and demanded that he let you take a basket of produce, free of charge?  That farmer spends his days and nights laboring on his property to provide food to the masses and, in doing so, affords a living for himself and his family.  And so, you make a weekly trip to the grocery store to purchase what he has made available.  What would there be to demand if there were no farmers?  You would simply have to go and find food.  Likewise, if there were no doctors, what health care “right” would exist for which you could have an expectation when you become sick?   It used to be simple; you recover, or you don’t.  

   However, medical advancements in information and practice have improved life quality and expectancy over the centuries such that not making this remedial progression available to all people is currently looked upon as a moral sin.  Now, presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are reinforcing the notion of entitlement to healthcare by urging voters that their government-run “Medicare-for-All,” a single-payer, universal health care system, would, through its availability and affordability, fulfill your human rights to life, liberty and happiness.  After all, universal health care promises less red tape, no financial responsibility to the patient for hospital services, and, most importantly, equality of opportunity.  In fact, a Reuters survey near the end of last year demonstrated the increasing support for this socialist evolution as 70% of Americans back a Medicare-for-All program defined as a “publicly financed, privately delivered system with all Americans enrolled and all medically necessary services covered.”  But, as the country moves further away from the biblical principle of work ethic for individual provision and increasingly toward the humanistic approach of government hand-outs, it would be wise for us to consider whether this is a task that even should be assumed by the federal government, which is a debate that squarely divided the nation because it rests solely on constitutional interpretation.

   So, let us simply consider the cost-benefit analysis if this ultimately becomes an exclusive government charge.  There are only two primary selling points for universal health care.  The first is the guarantee that no one will ever be denied service, which is generally nullified by the fact that it is already against the law for a public hospital to refuse care to anyone while emergency care cannot be denied at any hospital based on the patient’s ability to pay.  This leaves us with one truly tangible benefit: the alleviation of any immediate cost to a patient during their hospital stay.  These socialist candidates tout this factor without any real acknowledgment of the numerous, variable costs actually incurred by the collective (which are not just financial).  Discussing the issue of increasing tax rates is nearly futile as the cost-saving ratio will vary substantially based on individual families, but suffice it to say, all taxes will go up.  Wait times in hospitals, care facilities, and emergency rooms will surge exponentially, due to both a rise in the number of people seeking general treatment and the lack of resources available to provide the service.  This issue is the number one concern for Canadian citizens regarding their health care system according to a leading member of their Health Policy Institute.  

   Under a universal system, funds must also be explicitly prioritized, meaning that the government chooses which aspect of service requires the most attention.  Funds can be allocated for either hiring more staff members or acquiring properly functioning and state-of-the-art medical equipment and facility needs — but not both.  If the state chooses equipment over personnel, then there are fewer trained professionals available to provide the service, leading us back to increased wait times and a lower quality of care.  

   Public assistance also means zero incentive for medical professionals to advance themselves, resulting in a diminished level of care quality, accentuated by a complete lack of necessary medical specialists who offer much coveted expertise.  Competition, the driving force behind any market improvement, will be eliminated, meaning that overall costs will not actually decrease from current levels.  Let us not forget that an oversized federal bureaucracy has also demonstrated, time and again, a glaring incompetence in sustaining efficient government-based programs that guarantee both fairness and effective results (for example, many deceased US citizens still receive social security checks).

   A missionary friend of mine recently returned from England for an opportunity at respite.  He has a young son with a second child on the way and his description of the health care system in England seems to follow the pattern.  He did not pay a dime while in the hospital.  When their son developed an ear infection, they made an appointment for a specific time, but when they arrived, they waited between two-three hours to be seen.  England’s universal health care system also does not conduct preventative visits, so when they needed a “well-child check,” they had to wait for a “weigh-in” day at the local hospital, when anyone could bring in their child for this service.  However, no medical professionals were present to oversee the process and offer counsel as to how the child might be doing according to recommended health standards.  When one calls for an ambulance in England, no one knows when it might arrive, due to resource allocation and prioritization of the illness.  Doctors do the best they can but get paid a modest salary with no incentive to specialize, meaning care is basic and generic with little promise of expert treatment.  

   A political soundbite that guarantees people will receive comprehensive healthcare at no immediate cost is humanistic gold.  But what are we really gaining if the quality of care evaporates?   Would you pay a farmer for a rotten bushel of apples?   I would think not.  But, we would be willing to allow the most inefficient and wasteful institution on the planet to take more of our money than they already do to offer us an unpredictable, substandard product?  I hope not.

Learn how to email this article to others