U.S. Health Care Issues
So, I'm no economist, I admit, but I think that Universal Health Care would be fairly easy to exploit.
And this is, of course, not bringing into the equation how I and other conservative-type persons simply don't like having the government telling me how to wipe my nose and ruling every other aspect of me.Something about personal liberty...
Anyways that is another issue but here I just want to bring up some things that I think are real weaknesses in the idea of Universal Health Care/Standardized Health Care/whatever other clever name they come up with to make it sound more palatable.
I'd be glad to hear from supporters of the system as to whether or not my issues are realistic, or how said problems can be addressed.
So think of this as more of a series of questions, rather than a determined assault on socialism.
1. There would be a tendency for people seriosly needing care to be overlooked or forced to wait.
I would cite in examples Canada, where some patients have died while on the waiting list for major operations, and England, where there is a law that patients cannot be in the waiting room for longer than 4 hours, and as a result sometimes patients have to be left in the ambulance they arrived on.
(These could be rumors as I am not especially tuned in to Canada or the UK.)
2. There could be a tendency for people who really don't need aid to skim off the system. The idea being similar to wellfare, where people who could easily go out and get jobs apply for wellfare simply because it's easier.
Thus, couldn't the system be flooded with moochers and slobs, thereby wasting resources and denying aid to those who really need it?
I mean, look at any such program in the world. If you offer it as FREE, there will be a lot of people who ordinarily wouldn't be interested in it, but just come because it's free and they want to make a buck or because they're lazy.
For example, look at the Plymouth Colony at it's founding. A classic capitalist example, I know.
Anyways, in the beginning, crops were harvested from large community fields. Everybody would work and fill up the town granary (or that was the idea) and then each person could take from the community storage area whatever they needed.
So the colony fell into near-starvation. And then a number of sweeping changes were made.
Rather than large community fields, each family was given a lot outside their house. They could farm that lot and get food for themselves, or they could starve. Suddenly, women who were "too feeble" to work and men who "didn't feel well" were out there working with the rest. Seems like they must have realized that they couldn't live off of other people's efforts any more...
So in short, wouldn't that be a major weakness in the health care system?
3. It would not be hard at all for the system to be used as almost a weapon against opposition.
"You don't agree with my policies? Fine! I'll put you on the waiting list for a kydney transplant until you croak. Problem solved."
And it wouldn't have to be some kind of high-level conspiracy either. Supporters of the current administration just happen to be higher on the list by and large...
Now I know that we like to think, "Oh, that would never happen HERE!!!" I think that attitude, however, is just what allows power-hungry people to get their foot in the door, so to speak.
But why don't we look at history and observe the novel pattern that shows how power corrupts... with astonishing regularity.
4. Obviosly it's a considerable amount of money to spend, especially considering the success of other recent measures...
5. In any kind of organization, a thing will become more awkward and sluggish as it becomes larger and more complicated. This would tie in with #1.
As a thing grows larger, there is less time and less resources available to pay as great of attention to detail. The best you can do is compartmentalize it, but it still isn't as efficient.
As in business. A great big corporation simply doesn't have the diversity and flexibility of several small companies. In short, it's like putting all your eggs into one basket.
So why are we in a big rush to put the whole system under one management? Sure, it can regulate easier, and perhaps you would avoid some problems that way, but you would also become less effective in general.
Beauracracy tends to become sluggish as it grows, you know? Look at any other government agency? They often become downright sloppy. Do we really want health care like that, or do we think "Oh, it will work THIS time (even though it hasn't worked before)."
Take schools, for instance. Does anybody want to take the side that public schools are turning out really fine students these days, and that any public school kid is better off than in private school?
Anyways, I'd be interested to hear from everybody on the forum.
One thing I will acknowledge straight off is that I haven't done a great deal of study on the health care systems in Germany, France, and the UK, which would be valuable knowledge for this issue.
However, even then we'd have to distinguish between the ideal system (for conservative or liberal persons) and what our messed up Congress will actually come up with, which is probably the most frightening thought.
Land of the Free! Home of the 
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus
tards that have spent their whole lives in the Neo-Con/Corporatist system to spout the usual Nationalist Agenda of Change being bad, evil, Commie.
