Seema Johnson – Houghton STAR

In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote the above title against existing bans on privatized health care. This concern amongst others was briefly disregarded, as the final judgment in favor of a reform expired. However, the Canadian Medical Association soon after adopted a motion supporting access to private sector services, realizing its necessity in the midst of untimely healthcare delivery by the single-payer healthcare system.

This realization in terms of the United States healthcare system was mentioned in the last article as “exclusively for those who can pay,” resulting in a deficit in the number of people receiving healthcare. A universal, socialized form of coverage would allegedly allow those unable to pay for insurance or out-of-pocket to receive healthcare. Seema Johnson RGB

It may seem intuitive that the uninsured would receive lower quality care or would choose to forgo the care altogether. However, in a multidimensional study conducted by Helen Levy of the University of Michigan’s Economic Research Initiative on the Uninsured, and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago, no definitive “causal relationship” existed between health insurance and better health. Health insurance did not guarantee better health and vice versa. In another study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine last year, “health insurance status was largely unrelated to the quality of care” despite the accompanying acknowledgment that numerous Americans were not receiving an appropriate level of care. In essence, those with or without insurance received the same quality of healthcare.

In light of the research, Federal Law requires that patients be treated regardless of their insurance status as mentioned in the previous article. All Americans have access to at least emergency care (whose waiting lines are much shorter than those in the socialized system), and hospitals are legally required to provide care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Although physicians are not held under the same legal jurisdiction, numerous physicians are still willing to provide treatment despite a lack of insurance. This aspect is a “petty appeasement” in that patients are still required to pay for treatment over a longer term. However, even the progressively-minded, famed science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein realizes that “nothing of value is free” – a phrase proponents of socialized healthcare seem to forget within their own system with higher taxes accounting for the free-for-all healthcare.

In spite of this lapse, a larger problem occurs with the funneling of these higher taxes into the largest business monopoly in the country, the government. As a large monopoly, the “business” is expensive and inefficient in contrast to the private sector when attempting to receive same levels of quality as briefly mentioned in the first article. While the United States spends more on healthcare per capita than other nations in the world as of 2011, quality of healthcare in other countries is hurting and even lacking with most other services aside from general medicine (e.g. dentistry, optometry, pharmaceutical drugs) not covered under the universal system, incentivizing those in need to pay for private insurance anyway. This lack of services offered is a result of underfunding of the overarching system with increased numbers of organizations and personnel. While the solution to this is increased funding (i.e. increased taxes), quality of healthcare seems to never improve with the extra money channeled into those ambitions deemed suitable by the government – a problem more easily exterminated in the arena of the free market heavily influenced by consumerist decisions.

As a final thought for this article, I would like to acknowledge that the free market has its own sets of issues somewhat outlined in the previous article preventing it from being a one trick pony to healthcare for all. However, this system has more flexibility to repair errors and inefficiencies than that of the public sector where solutions provided by sources outside of the government cannot be implemented. It is much more difficult to revert from a monopolized system in the midst of inevitable predicaments making the public sector a danger in healthcare enhancement.

Momentarily awakened from my post-lunch reverie amidst the antiseptic odor of the general practitioner’s office, I sharply turned in the plush brown waiting room chair to see an older gentleman in crutches signing away five hundred green ones. As a seven year old with automated abhorrence to the feeblest of expletives (and perhaps no concept of heavy spending), I was instantly shocked at the perceived crude disdain of what I eventually came to realize as harsh reality for the majority of the world’s population—expensive healthcare.

Seema Johnson RGB With the upcoming presidential elections, most of us have recently heard some form of a promise for free, government-funded healthcare or perhaps the more “costly” privatized version as a remedy for this worldwide predicament at the country’s level. Some of us have even ascribed to certain stances on these systems citing familial circumstances, moral convictions, or even mere general preference in support of our personal viewpoints. However, a large majority of us have failed to thoroughly examine these systems in terms of broader, far-reaching pros and cons.

Numerous countries have adopted one of three forms of healthcare on a spectrum between full government coverage and privatized coverage commonly labeled the Single-Payer, Two-Tier, and Insurance Mandate systems. The entirely government funded Single-Payer system has been utilized by the majority of countries in these three categories of healthcare and contains a number of recurring problems. Long waiting lines of patients in need of care result in long wait times ranging from weeks to months. When patients finally receive access to care, the quality is comparatively lower due to reduced incentive from health care providers receiving diminished wages.

Limited funding provided by the government (due to limited taxing) in the face of unlimited lines of patients also limits the amounts of needed supplies contributing to the long waiting lines. While everyone subjected to this system at the very least receives some basal level of care debt-free, the structure of the system promotes potential abuse as a form of welfare, further diverting taxpayer dollars from those in need of critical care. Strict adherence to this system also stunts potential innovation regarding the more effective distribution of any kind of higher quality healthcare to any of the population. Innovation in medical advancements is further stunted while more government funding is used to pay for the healthcare rather than for research in the field (particularly in the face of the impending national debt in the United States).

The Two-Tier system provides a government-funded basal level of healthcare while allowing those with the means to purchase supplementary insurance. This system however, leaves those lower-income individuals in need of critical care in the dust, as the privileged in society receive access to much higher forms of healthcare while problems concerning the basal level still stand.

The third system requires a government-mandated purchase of some form of insurance by all citizens (e.g. Obamacare). While this system promotes a competitive private market for insurance companies (potentially providing better benefits with lower associated costs), those lower-income individuals are restricted to more inexpensive forms of insurance with potentially inadequate benefits.

If all of these systems in one way or another inadequately reach those in need of care, what is the solution? Some have opted for an entirely market-based form of healthcare. Millions of people would potentially revert to being uninsured. Non-mandated insurance would also potentially only be purchased by those thinking they’re actually in need of such a service, contributing to potential market failure. In essence, uninsurance and rising costs for health care would continue to exist. The answer cannot merely lie in extensive government involvement or a sole market-based system. However, a necessary first step should perhaps involve extensive reevaluation of efficient resource allocation—an evident power of the free market.