"Free" Health Care

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
"Free" Health Care
186
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 8:58am
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040721.shtml

Free health care

Walter E. Williams

July 21, 2004


Let's start out by not quibbling with America's socialists' false claim that health-care service is a human right that people should have regardless of whether they can pay for it or not and that it should be free. Before we buy into this socialist agenda, we might check out just what happens when health-care services are "free." Let's look at our neighbor to the north -- Canada.

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver, B.C.-based think tank, has done yeoman's work keeping track of Canada's socialized health-care system. It has just come out with its 13th annual waiting-list survey. It shows that the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Adding to Canada's medical problems is the exodus of doctors. According to a March 2003 story in Canada News (www.canoe.ca), about 10,000 doctors left Canada during the 1990s. Compounding the exodus of doctors is the drop in medical school graduates. According to Houston, Ontario has chosen to turn to nurses to replace its bolting doctors. It's "creating" 369 new positions for nurse practitioners to take up the slack for the doctor shortage.

Some patients avoided long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. In 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On its face, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." That's on its face. But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so. The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers.

I'm wondering just how many Americans would like Canada's long waiting lists, medical czars deciding what treatments we get and an exodus of doctors.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sat, 08-14-2004 - 9:14pm
Why are you & I more responsible for his health care than his employer?"

Actually, the primary party responsible for his healthcare is him...and it is not the job of government to tell employers that they must provide health care benefits to employees. You are also niave if you think you won't somehow be paying even if your idea of forcing companies to insure people goes through.

Last I heard, all these employers also pay taxes, so they are also paying for this man's failure to obtain insurance.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sat, 08-14-2004 - 10:23pm
Personally I do not approve of this method of providing health care. As for saying he himself is primarily responsible, nice idea, but you can see how far it took us in this particular case, and no doubt thousands more. I'm suggesting we try something different, but you must be saying this system we have is fine.





< Actually, the primary party responsible for his healthcare is him...and it is not the job of government to tell employers that they must provide health care benefits to employees. You are also niave if you think you won't somehow be paying even if your idea of forcing companies to insure people goes through.

Last I heard, all these employers also pay taxes, so they are also paying for this man's failure to obtain insurance. >

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 8:58am
I AM saying insurance costs about $400 a month in many places for relatively healthy young people, family insurance can easily be $800-$1,000 for healthy families. IF you wish to live without insurance, eventually the government will cover you... but you'll lose any home or savings as a result. People who would rather be comped the higher salery vs the insurance are taking a risk... personally I think paying $1,000 a month for insurance is reasonable. Medical care isn't cheap or free, the problem seems to be many want subsidized insurance, which only means someone else will be picking up the tab.

The first question for the individual, is: Why didn't you have health coverage?

Employers are hiring people to work, they aren't adopting those they hire.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 9:36am
Well maybe you would be harsh enough to ask someone you just met that kind of question after it was too late to change anything, but I am not like that. You keep repeating these types of statements, first I was supposed to tell him to buy insurance, then when you finally understood it was too late to do that, I am supposed to ask him why he didn't. You don't get it, I am not in a position that allows me to scold people for what you consider to be bad planning.

You are incorrect about losing your home, if you have one. This man did not own a home, but if he did, he would not lose it by qualifying for medicaid. I am left wondering how much you really know about this topic.

Yes, someone else will be picking up the tab, that's a point of agreement between us, I object to that, don't you? How do you propose we end that???


< I AM saying insurance costs about $400 a month in many places for relatively healthy young people, family insurance can easily be $800-$1,000 for healthy families. IF you wish to live without insurance, eventually the government will cover you... but you'll lose any home or savings as a result. People who would rather be comped the higher salery vs the insurance are taking a risk... personally I think paying $1,000 a month for insurance is reasonable. Medical care isn't cheap or free, the problem seems to be many want subsidized insurance, which only means someone else will be picking up the tab.

The first question for the individual, is: Why didn't you have health coverage?

Employers are hiring people to work, they aren't adopting those they hire.>

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 10:09am
I do not understand your attitude.

It is not smart, in fact it's dumb, to live without health insurance. However an employer is not a mother, father or whatever. Many have coverage provided by other means and would prefer to be comped a higher rate rather than have duplicative coverage.

Anyone without health insurance in a developed country is taking a foolish risk. The person you describe was being foolish. I have little sympathy for such an individual.

The person you describe is someone who is relying on others to help correct errors he's made in his life... which in America during the early 21st century seems very common.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 11:20am
My attitude is that we, as taxpayers, should not have to pay his bills, but under the system we currently have, we end up doing that.

Of course it's not smart to go without health insurance, I don't disagree with you. But thousands of people are doing that as we speak, & when they get sick, you & I will pay the bills. You say these people are responsible, but they are not being held responsible in the system that exists today, yet you don't want any change??? Lack of sympathy for him does nothing to change the fact that you & I are now paying his bills.

You end by saying he is relying on others, fine, that's what I've been saying all along, we agree then. What we disagree on is whether or not that should be changed. I made one suggestion about how it could be changed, you don't like that suggestion. But is your plan to continue on this way, letting people stick us with the bill? You have no other idea except to verbally scold people we encounter in our own small circles?

BTW, most people in his income bracket are not offerred any choice about being comped at a higher rate VS insurance benefits, and in this particular case, he was not.





< I do not understand your attitude.

It is not smart, in fact it's dumb, to live without health insurance. However an employer is not a mother, father or whatever. Many have coverage provided by other means and would prefer to be comped a higher rate rather than have duplicative coverage.

Anyone without health insurance in a developed country is taking a foolish risk. The person you describe was being foolish. I have little sympathy for such an individual.

The person you describe is someone who is relying on others to help correct errors he's made in his life... which in America during the early 21st century seems very common. >

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 12:09pm
Yes, the taxpayer is the ultimate bag holder when people make dumb choices. Shifting the burden to all employers will make it harder to be an employer and will push down wages. There is no free lunch. I see absolutely no benefit to hitting employers vs taxpayers for dumb choices of others, other than hitting employers makes it much harder for small businesses.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 1:14pm
Only a handful of people on the far left are suggesting "free" health care on the order of a Canadian plan. Scaring people with this is a long time strategy of Republicans. Obscure the real issues with words like "communist" and 'socialist" and throw around stuff that nobody is even talking about. Divisive politics.

I am self-employed. I cannot afford insurance through private plans. I'd like to be able to buy into one of the plans offered through federal insurance, it's cheap enough for me to be able to afford it. What's so horrifying about that? Why shouldn't every American have access to the same plan a Senator or Congressman has?

That's the Kerry plan. Oh, the evilness of it all.

There's three choices. We get everybody covered through some sort of public/private strategy, go single-payer, or all of you with insurance can keep seeing your premiums rise when catastrophes hit the uninsured. That's the choice, plain and simple. 50% of Americans have incomes of less than $25,000 a year. The plain truth is that they can't pay for a $500 a month health insurance policy. And as long as those of you at the top want cheap services for your leisurely lifestyle, there will have to be cheap labor at the bottom. You just can't have your riches and turn a blind eye to how you're getting it.

People don't have a right to health care so they can live. And you call yourselves Christian. Ha.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-05-2003
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 1:26pm
"Only a handful of people on the far left are suggesting "free" health care on the order of a Canadian plan. Scaring people with this is a long time strategy of Republicans. Obscure the real issues with words like "communist" and 'socialist" and throw around stuff that nobody is even talking about. Divisive politics.

I am self-employed. I cannot afford insurance through private plans. I'd like to be able to buy into one of the plans offered through federal insurance, it's cheap enough for me to be able to afford it. What's so horrifying about that? Why shouldn't every American have access to the same plan a Senator or Congressman has? "

How much would you pay for federal insurance, which insurance plan? What is the cost of private insurance which you consider unafforable. I'm somewhat interested in how you decide what's affordable and what isn't and which federal insurance plan you consider attractive (do you want medicare?). Personally I don't consider $400-$500 per month as a medical health care premium for a young healthy person unreasonable.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2004
Sun, 08-15-2004 - 1:34pm
"Personally I don't consider $400-$500 per month as a medical health care premium for a young healthy person unreasonable."

Exactly. Because you live in delusion land where you think everybody makes $200,000 a year. Only the top 2% have that kind of income. Only the top 10% has an income of more than $100,000 a year. The average household income is around $45,000, often with TWO workers. No way a $500 a month premium is reasonable. Wake up to the real world.

Buying into Medicare is a plan that has been floated. But John Kerry is talking about buying into the same federal plans that are offered to federal employees. These range from $50 a month to $200 a month, depending on the plan and the insurance provider. That would be affordable to almost everybody. No reason in the world I shouldn't be given that option. It's MY tax dollars that make it possible to have that kind of purchasing power in the first place.

Pages