Reasons We Don't Need Universal Healthcare

Universal Health Care seems to be in vogue again, even though the Democrats tried this before and it failed to pass. Part of this may be because the President Elect stated health care was a "right" of all Americans. However, I have to disagree with the constitutional scholar. No where in the Bill of Rights or Constitution do the Founding Fathers indicate that access to the best medical treatment without regard to cost is a fundamental right of all Americans.

In Mr. Obama's argument, he even qualifies the right because we live in a "rich" nation. How does he think we got rich? It's because we had free enterprise and freedom of choice.

There are three major problems with any Universal Healthcare System we may implement. It would increase overall healthcare costs, it would degrade the quality of service, and it would take away our freedom and limit choice.

Contrary to popular belief, a government run health care system would not be any less expensive than our current private payer insurance system. When the need for a universal healthcare system is put forth, usually there is an anecdote of someones mother or grandmother having a hard time paying for something. However, anecdotal evidence does not mean the conditions are universal.

Instead of having privately run institutions with limited boards, we would instead have to develop a large bueracracy at the Federal, state and local level to manage our hospitals and clinics. The higher taxes needed to fund this additional bueracracy would come from our taxes, which are already stretched to pay for current government projects. With both the out-of-pocket expenses we would have to pay and the higher taxes needed to fund the the bueracracy, the American public would indeed end up paying more.

Another consequence of moving to a universal healthcare system would be a degradation in service. Other countries with universal healthcare have slow ambulance response times and long waiting periods for treatment. Now why would we degrade a life saving system just to save a portion of the US population a little money?

Finally, have the Federal Government involved in making decisions about our healthcare and lifestyle will take away choices from Americans. According to 2006 numbers (some of the most recent), 38% of America's uninsured population earn $50,000 or more. That's almost 18 million people who have decided, on their own, that they want to spend their money elsewhere. How can the Federal Government suddenly decide that these people can't make that choice for themselves any longer?

Taken to it's absurd limit, the American public would lose lifestyle choices because of perceived problems from some lifestyles. This means that, even though McDonalds may still offer french fries, you may not be able to eat them. Of course, managing these 'waistline cops' would simply add to the cost of the healthcare budget.

All three of these problems relate to the fact that, in the United States, government was not meant to take the place of businesses. Government should have a limited role in our daily lives.

Hat Tip to Carpe Diem for the uninsured statistics.