The basic problems with “universal” health care

Published on Friday, July 24, 2009 By Brad Wardell In Politics

Right now we have N people with insurance and Y doctors.

Obama’s plan would be N+40 million with the same number of doctors.

That doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.

The counter argument is always that we’re already paying for those 40 million people.  Well, if that is truly the case, then problem solved we don’t need to provide them with health insurance.  But in reality, no, those 40 million uninsured don’t have even remotely the same access as those with health insurance. They may get emergency care abut not much beyond that.

So what do you do if you don’t increase the supply of health care providers but do increase the supply of health care consumers? You get rationing. 

The second big problem has to do with who is paying for it.

Right now, people who have health insurance are overwhelmingly paying for it themselves – either through their employer or on their own.

But if we hand over this to the government, then we get back to the top 1% paying for 40% of it.  Sure, it’s a good deal for people who barely pay taxes but for the rest of us, do we really want to get into a situation where “society” is deciding what care we need or don’t need and paying for fundamental personal responsibilities? What’s next? Housing? Food? Clothing?  Why stop at health care?

There are so many other reasons to object to universal health care but those are a couple of the most basic reasons I oppose any government involvement in health care.