My Rant Against Socialized Healthcare

Disclaimer: I am not a health care professional, nor a politician. While I am not a leading expert in this field, this post reflects my research and experiences on the subject of the government and the free economy. In no way do I represent myself as an authority, and I encourage all to do their research and determine what they feel is the best outcome for the United States. Enjoy.

This election seems to be a highly charged one. Information flows freely from each side, and can be disseminated in many different forms. This means that the voting population is largely alone in trying to determine which is the best course of action, and sifting through the information can become a challenge. One of the hot topics of the upcoming election is the revamping of the health care system of the United States. While there are many arguments, two primary forms of "revised" health care are generally supported. These two are socialized healthcare, and single-payer insurance. First, let me define the two for my readers:

• Socialized Healthcare: Some say the literal meaning is confined to systems in which the government operates health care facilities and employs health care professionals. (Narrowly defined to distinguish from single-payer health insurance, otherwise the definitions can intertwine). (Reference)
• Single Payer Insurance:  American term describing the payment for doctors, hospitals and other providers of health care from a single fund. (Reference2)

While not everyone will agree with these general definitions of the terms, these are the definitions that I will use during my discussion of socialized health care. Single-Payer insurance is a separate entity, and will be discussed in a later post. For now, let me focus on socialized health care.

Americans who support socialized healthcare cite the millions of uninsured Americans as the case to support a universal health care system. While I do not debate the benefits of supplying the US population with health care, I do question the creation of this system through taxation and government administration. The current law of the United States requires that an ER admit any person regardless of their ability to pay.(Reference3) This law requires that emergency service be provided to all. This has resulted in increased cost pressures on hospitals and has caused large cost deficits and frequently overruns in unpaid-for health care. Ultimately the taxpayer is responsible for these payments through either higher insurance premiums or directly out of governmental expense accounts.

I do not support the notion that these people are not entitled to health care -- actually much the opposite. I believe that access to health care is an important part of society and should be available to all. However, legislating health care as a provision to all of the citizens of the United States (or, even more difficultly, to all RESIDENTS (including non-citizens) of the United States) would require enormous expense. Many of the supporters of socialized health care cite the statistics showing the spending of the government on health care exceeds that of countries that currently employ socialized or single-payer insurance plans. This logic seems counterintuitive. Expanding a governmental entity that is already spending more on health care than any other industrialized nation doesn't seem to be the way to decrease governmental spending. Many governmental projects are rife with cost overruns and budget problems. Why, exactly, do we believe that socializing health care as a provision to every citizen will suddenly lower these costs?

Another issue I have with socializing health care is the potential conflict that it will create for doctors. Almost all of the best doctors in the world practice in the United States. And, to be frank, this is directly related to income. Practicing in the United States earns a doctor significantly more than in these socialized countries. Government is notorious for underpaying employees and doctors would become part of the problem. I would argue that most students pursuing a medical degree do so for two reasons: 1) To help mankind and make the world a healthier place, and 2) To make lots of money. Let's be honest, doctors deserve to be paid well for what they do. If we hand over the industry to the government, what happens to the drive to become a doctor? The second reason could very well be eliminated. What then? Doctors on welfare? I know, the idea sound ludicrous, but if we implement a system designed to reduce their salaries to keep down overall expenses, this is an inevitable result.

I fully support the notion that all employers should provide some kind of insurance or health care coverage for their employees. This is a cost of business. If you choose to run your own business, you should provide coverage for the people that work for you. This, however, is an entirely separate argument. I do believe that all should have health insurance.

While I support the notion that everyone should have health insurance, as I have stated, I do not precisely believe that a government-run health care system is the solution that the country is looking for. It requires careful study and creation -- it is not something that can simply be created from nothing.

So, what can we do about it?

I fully recognize that the health care system in the United States is not ideal. It is messed up in many significant ways. If socializing health care is not the solution, what is?

To find this solution, we can analyze one company that I believe is approaching it properly. For profit health care is a dangerous venture. It results in people searching to maximize profits for stockholders, and this causes an inherent conflict of interest. Maximizing profits and providing low-cost health care are inherently counter. However, there is one company that I have seen maximize these ideals: Kaiser Permanente. (Full Disclosure: I am a member of Kaiser, and my father works for the company.) This is in no way a cry of support for Kaiser, nor an advertisement for them, but more an analysis of how they approach business.

First of all, Kaiser is a non-profit organization. It is not a publicly traded company, nor ever will be. All profits made by the organization are placed back into the company to acquire the best doctors, equipment and technologies to help advance health care. Their insurance is not based on profit gaining ventures, and has been set up to provide for anyone willing to pay the premiums. Yes, you have to go to Kaiser to see your doctor. Yes, you have to see your primary care physician before being sent to a specialist. But this is not a hindrance. My mother recently required a specially crafted wrist brace to help problems she has been having with her thumb joint. She made an appointment with her primary care physician, saw her for about 30 minutes, and headed home with her recommendation. When she got home, she had a message on her answering machine from the specialist, already requesting an appointment. She made one for two days later, and was sent to the brace designer early the next week (her appt was on a Thursday). Her brace was finished 1 week later and provided to her at no cost, fully covered through the insurance. Many of you may argue that this is an isolated experience. However, growing up with Kaiser, I have always had these types of experience. Granted, others may argue that it is a result of my father working for the company. This is also not the case. There is no way to tell who works for Kaiser by viewing my medical record. This information is not provided, and those doctors do not know this information. My father isn't even a doctor, and rarely interfaces with them.

Is Kaiser perfect? No. There are many arguments that it isn't, and that the system is inherently flawed. I won't disagree. There are flaws in the system. There are flaws in every system. Proposing a fix like socialized health care provides more problems than it solves. Do we want higher taxes to support yet another government agency? I don't. I think taxes are high enough!

Do I have a solution? No. But I think the model of a potential solution can be found in our economy. Let's determine if that will work before we fund yet another governmental bureaucracy.

Updated: I found out that Kaiser does allow self referral for certain specialities.

Comments? You know where to leave 'em.