Going back to Marxism and the idea of universal health care that was brought up in class, I agree that health care is a natural need of all people, one that all self-interested persons are together in desiring, but I do not see the step from to a the necessity of providing health care, or any public function, for everyone. This is not only to do with health care, but also with the social security, fire department, and ambulance examples that we discussed in class. From a libertarian perspective, the government's providing of these communal goods is a violation of my personal liberty and goes against my self interest as well. When I earn money, it is in my interest to make a profit so that I can meet the needs I might have in the future. It is not in my immediate interest to make a profit so that I can pay for the needs of others, although it might be in my interest to make sure that others are capable of receiving these goods anyways.
For example, with the case of health care, as a self interested being I want to be able to pay for the services of receiving basic care. As self-interested, I can recognize no obligation to pay for health care unless I want it, and no obligation to pay for the health care of others. While I would still agree that health care is in everyone's best interest then, I don't see how it carries that this best interest requires me to pay for the health of others.
Having a universal health care system in place might even run contrary to my self interest in the long run. Due to the fact that health care is a limited resource, that there are not enough doctors to see every patient when they have an emergency let alone a basic check-up, providing everyone with health care might limit my own ability to receive the type and level of service I desire. Because of the limited resources available though, it could be the case that some individuals will use much more of this resource than I do, effectively taking a larger share of a common commodity although we would be contributing equally.
I know I'm oversimplifying the health care debate in this post- I admit I don't know what the current plan is. I also recognize that providing basic health care for people who need it but are unable to pay for it would cut down the cost of health care, as preventative care early on would decrease the numbers of those left fighting long term diseases that could have been more easily stopped if they had been diagnosed earlier. I guess my main problem is that I don't feel comfortable with the idea that just because all people have an interest in good health means that people have a right to health care, especially if that right to health care is played out by a government providing that care. Maybe my question is more whether health care is a entitlement that should be required from governments that are set up for the purpose of serving the people, even if this requires taking money from citizens who can pay to pay for those who can't, or whether health care is recognizable as a human commonality that all people admittedly share based on the common interest of good health, but that perhaps no single entity is obligated to provide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that health care is something that all humans have in common as far as needs go, but I'm not sure that it is that easy to get to. Socialized health care is something that, if begun and administered correctly, could work I think. However, it seems that the way we're trying to get there is far more complicated than it should be.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm tired of insurance companies raping individuals on rates, denying the right to be insured to those with pre-existing problems, and doctors trying to suck as much money out of insurance companies and humans as possible.
ReplyDeleteIs Social medicine the best plan? I'm willing to give some of the ideas a test run, even if I am unsure about many of the structures of the model.
I agree that universal healthcare is a good goal to set; however, I am hesitant to support it fully simply because I am wary of anything in the government's control.
ReplyDeleteWe already do have some embodiements of universal healthcare. The best example is VA hospitals. How many success stories do you hear about VA hospitals? Most of them have very long waits, patients receive poor care, and often they have to transfer patients to other hospitals with the facilities to perform procedures.
The main issue with expensive healthcare is insurance companies which leverage the health of individuals to personal profit, and it is very profitable.
Physicians rates are all dictated by insurance companies and the government. To be put simply a Doctor's "billing" comprises of the doctor telling an insurance company, my services cost $100 and the company putting a check in the mail for $50 and saying that's all we'll pay.
It's so bad that often hospitals will kick patients out for say pneumonia after 2 days even though they are nowhere near healthy because Medicare will only pay for 2 hospital day visits for patients regardless of severity or anything.
So is universal healthcare a good goal, yeah, but can it be implemented by a government that has such egregious errors that jack up the price of healthcare? Probably it will take 10 or more years and the timeframe of a political office doesn't really support that.