BY LINDSAY RENNER
Lions’ Pride Staff Writer
Since January 20 of 2009, all America has heard about from its president is “change” and “progress.” One of the most noteworthy areas to undergo “change” has been the American healthcare system. In yet another vaguely socialist manner, President Obama has proposed a healthcare system large enough to encompass the needs of the entire country. While a noble idea in theory, a country as large as ours would be much too large to support socialized healthcare in practice. Our economic resources are far too depleted as is, and the ever growing-amount of citizens would only further serve to inhibit the success of such a program. Obama champions making the health-care plan “deficit neutral,” but with an economy as volatile as ours, Americans cannot afford to overlook any aspect of the economy.
To fund this new healthcare system, Obama proposes throwing $10 billion a year towards providing equal healthcare coverage for all. This money would come from a tax hike, which does not seem to be the best choice for an already strained economy. Contrary to the beliefs of our vice president, the best way out of a recession is not to spend money that does not exist, but rather, to find a way to make the money that we still do have last, and try to find a way to make it grow from there.
While some citizens deserve government healthcare, as they cannot afford a private plan, there is no reason to make those who are able to afford more efficient private insurance go without it. A health insurance policy needs to be the best fit for the person who is going to receive its benefits in the future. The government, although it may serve to function as an entity to provide for the needs of its citizens, simply cannot provide a stable, well-fitting healthcare system for such a large population in such a poor economic climate.
If one wants an example of how a government-run healthcare system works, the British healthcare system is a prime example of why socialized healthcare is a poor choice. To even get a doctor’s appointment, one must go through a whole chain of bureaucracy. If it is determined from there that the patient needs surgery or further testing, yet another panel of bureaucrats decides whether or not the patient truly “needs” to have anything done. It is common in this system for men and women to die waiting for surgery. The British population is nowhere near the size of the American public’s, and their system is that disastrously flawed. Obama’s plan may not recommend the rationing and quite the level bureaucracy that Britain has, but it is evident that if such a relatively small population cannot be supported under this policy, then ours has no chance of making it on such a tight budget.
The president, no doubt, has the best intentions. A government is supposed to provide for its people. However, there needs to be a distinction between aiding the citizens and doing everything for them. Obama needs to step back and take a look at what is practical for the economy, and go about doing what is best from there.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Edward Saint-Ivan // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree with you 100%. You might also mention our huge deficit is partly because we fought all the wars, protected Europe and Asia from the Soviets, and lead the world in developing new drugs. Without us, socialist nations couldn’t afford socialism.
Edward Saint-Ivan, MPA
SLC Class of 87′
2 Edward Saint-Ivan // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm
If we could find the money to pay for socialized medicine {as in single payer} I would support it. The critics say the Canadian system causes people to wait in line and do without because of rationing.
I have no doubt socialized medicine has drawbacks but rich people can go outside the system and poor people have nothing to loose.
3 Earl Johnson // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Edward,
It is difficult to criticize “Obamacare” because he does not technically have a plan. He has left this in the hands of Congress, unions such as SCIU, as well as groups like the Apollo Alliance (they wrote the $787 billion stimulus bill) to write it. This despite the fact of his claims that he will “lead the nation into a new tomorrow” and provide the “change we can believe in”. That said, of the five most popular bills circulating Congress, I believe nearly all would make it illegal, just like it is in Britton, to purchase medical care with cash. This, along with the other provisions that will eventually drive everyone to the public “option” will no doubt overwhelm the system. In health care, the only real way to cut costs is to deny service and with so many being covered on the plan and the trillions of unfunded liabilities the United States has, money will run out. This is where the death panel accusation comes in because also contained in most of the bills are the guidelines and funding for a new department where a whole new set of bureaucrats will deem what is appropriate care and what isn’t. This is what Obama was eluding to when he said that we need to look at and determine that perhaps it will be better for grandma to take a pill instead of getting that risky procedure since she is at the end of her life anyway. Obama loves straw man arguments and the one about people saying he wants to pull the plug on granny was one of his favorites. What many were actually arguing is that the plans in Congress would create a group of people who sit in some office, with no emotions or real perspective regarding the situation, will not be deciding if the plug should be pulled. They will be deciding if the plug should be plugged in at all.
Most Republicans and conservatives I know all agree that the system needs some fixes, but there is no reason to go to this extreme. Most people do not have a problem with health care. Most of us have a problem with health insurance. This problem can be addressed through measures such as loosening regulations so it can be purchased across state lines for catastrophic insurance and eliminating the middle man for common procedures. The problem with both of these is that they do not grow the government, which is a problem for many of the big-government politicians in Washington (On both sides of the isle. Let’s not forget that Bush doubled the size of the federal government while he was in office.) because they are determined to create as many dependent people as possible in order to secure their future employment. Any system that exists that would have someone spend millions of dollars in order to get a job that pays $150,000 per year should be looked at with great concern and skepticism.
Last point about the current health insurance industry: If car insurance functioned like health insurance, you would be paying a $50 co-pay for the same oil service you used to get for $19.99 when you paid cash. Anyone who says that universal (or public option if you are into euphemisms) health care is the only solution and that the opposition are just raciest and have no solutions to offer is either supremely ignorant, or has an agenda that has nothing to do with providing better health care.
4 Josh Smith // Sep 29, 2009 at 5:53 am
If Obama and the Democrats in Congress were serious about reforming health care and lowering costs, they would include tort reform in the bills they are drafting. The fear of junk lawsuits causes many doctors to order unnecessary tests and precedures just to protect themselves from the trial lawyers. Many OB/GYNs can no longer afford malpractice insurance as it is.
Instead, Obama and Democrats are proposing a fine (i.e. a tax) on people who do not choose to purchase insurance, an idea that is very likely unconstitutional (see the 10th Amendment) and would not hold up when challenged in court.
Let us all pray that Obama and Congress start listening to doctors before they seriously damage our health care. Democrats ought to use the same basic rule as doctors: “First, do no harm.”
Josh Smith
Saint Leo University, Class of 2009
Leave a Comment
(Comments with bogus names or email addresses will not be approved.)