There is no hipper liberal principle than universal health care. It helps the poor, hurts parasitic insurance companies and will make America more like France. What more could one want?
Hip as it may be, universal health care is a bad idea for people of all political persuasions. It will exacerbate present problems as well as create new ones in the future.
The only way to develop a sensible discussion about health care is to begin by sorting the good ideas from the bad ones. To that end, it is important to consider the problems of a universal system.
If the government is footing the bill, people will visit doctors more frequently. They will request erroneous procedures and visit the doctor’s office even when they have minor reason to do so.
Medicare, government funded health insurance for the elderly, incurs extraordinary costs due to excessive doctor visits, tests and procedures. To make matters worse, these extra tests have done nothing to improve the health of Medicare recipients.
The cost of Medicare has been so inflated by waste that, even though the program only insures the elderly, it made up 12 percent of the federal budget last year. Universal health care would cost way more than Medicare. It would also create much systemic harm.
The government will have to work hard to cut the costs of universal care. It has few options with which to do so.
Congress could legislate out certain tests or cap the number of visits one can make. It could also choose not to cover procedures which it finds to be morally objectionable. This is a dangerous road to travel on. Social conservatives have a penchant for cutting funding for people who are gay, transgender, considering abortion and for treatment related to sex and drugs. No one wants politicians to choose provisions in their health insurance plans.
The government might also decide to just cut the amount that it pays doctors and hospitals. Politicians will choose to pay less than the proper market rate for such procedures. Today, the government barely pays doctors enough to cover the cost of visits and procedures.
As a result, hospitals increase the price of the procedures. They pass what they lose on Medicare and Medicaid patients on to privately insured persons. Currently, the government’s cost cutting translates into high medical prices for everyone else.
When doctors are paid less, they have less of an incentive to perform as well. Similarly, there is an inverse relationship between patient satisfaction and the number of patients seen by a doctor after a certain point.
America has a major shortage of doctors. By 2020 there will be 200 thousand fewer doctors than this country needs.
If the number of primary care physicians does not grow in the next few years, the system will be overburdened beyond repair in 20 to 30 years. If the U.S. were to universalize health care, the number of doctors would fall.
Since the government is likely to pay doctors less than private insurance, doctors will make less money if health care is universalized. In order to make pre-universal health care salaries, doctors will need to see more patients and do more procedures.
Private insurance companies are forced to pay doctors the fair market rate. If an insurance company pays too little, the doctor will choose not to recognize that insurance company’s plan.
If a doctor demands too much, an insurance company will choose not to do business with him. This all evens out, and doctors are paid fairly. As a result, doctors will not be underpaid as they would be with universal health care.
Universal health care is thus a sure-fire way to decrease the number of doctors and increase the number of patients. Combined with population growth, universal health care will substantially increase the number of patients.
Doctors will be overburdened and the quality of care will suffer. People will have long waiting lists and less empathetic physicians. The availability and attentiveness of medical care is directly related to the health and satisfaction of patients.
The decreased quality of health care will cause people to try to seek out private insurance. Private insurance companies would not be able to compete with the government because the government can spend in debt. A company does not have the luxury of operating at a loss.
As a result, there will only be a few health insurance companies. These companies will charge a lot of money because of the scarcity of their product. Only the very rich will have access to quality health care.
It is also prudent to focus on budgetary problems associated with health care. The federal government is unable to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. It is very difficult to envision a situation in which it will be able to pay for a universal health care.
The government will almost certainly need to increase taxes to deal with the increase in health care spending. When taxes are increased, people buy less because more money is going to the government. Companies are worse off as a result.
The less money companies make, the fewer jobs they can offer. This translates into less tax revenue in sales and income. Thus, an increase in taxes may well lead to a decrease in overall tax revenue.
The government will not be able to keep universal care solvent with tax revenues. It will also need to cut spending elsewhere.
Unfortunately, given gargantuan health care costs, it is hard to pinpoint a place for the government to cut. American infrastructure is falling apart and schools are underfunded as it is.
Even a massive decrease in military spending cannot account for the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, to say nothing of a universal health care system.
America cannot continue borrowing at the present rate either. The world is starting to seriously question America’s ability to pay back what it owes. Global faith in the U.S. affects investors’ decisions to buy domestic assets.
Universal health care is bad for patients, doctors, the budget, the economy and other government programs. Something needs to be done about health in America. Unfortunately, universal health care will not help.
