A Look at Universal Healthcare

I got to thinking yesterday about a couple of the talking points that the Democrat candidates for President have been harping on this year. Specifically, I've been fascinated by their desire for Universal Healthcare (UH). It sounds very appealing and all, I mean who doesn't want "free" health care for all? I know there are many sound arguments in favor of it. But I think the evidence against it, when weighed side by side, is far more convincing. The biggest argument in favor of UH is that there are millions of people who are uninsured. That is true, but slightly misleading. I agree, it would be great to have everyone covered, but a large portion of those who are uninsured choose not to be because they are young and healthy. I don't have any specific numbers right now, I'll try and do some research on that and update this blog when I do.

Let me take a few moments to discuss the two main reasons I'm not in favor of UH. First, the government could never manage it. It got me to thinking just how disingenuous most of the Democrats are that are trying push UH. Let's look back just 3 years ago when Hurricane Katrina ripped through the bayou. Do you remember the coverage right after it? For the next 6 months all we ever heard about was how inept the Federal government was, specifically FEMA, at protecting New Orleans and cleaning up the mess after the fact. Just look at these articles:

• Exposed By Katrina (USAToday)
  
• Fraud Mounts in Katrina Aid (USAToday)
• Senate Calls for FEMA Shutdown (Washington Post)
  
• FEMA Deserved Criticism after Katrina (FoxNews)
• Exposed By Katrina (MyWire)
  

The list could go on, but you get the point. So here is what I don't understand. If people feel that the Federal government is not capable of handling one natural disaster, why in the heck should we expect them to successfully run a nationwide health care program? In this case, people like Hillary and Barack want to rip the government because of how inefficiently it cleaned up New Orleans and got people back on their feet, yet at the same time they keep telling us how they will get the government to fix our problems. So what is it? Is the government a bloated behemoth or a well oiled machine? It can't be both.

Second, I think UH pretty much fails the test of "policy in practice." All we have to do is look at our next door neighbor, Canada, to see what nationalized health care would look like in action. People are waiting over a year, and sometimes two, just to have a surgery. I have a friend who's grandmother traveled from Canada down to the US to have surgery because she was put on a 2 year waiting list. I can assure you that if you talk to Canadians who have needed any major surgery over the past decade, they will tell you just how bad nationalized medicine can be. Ironically, 9 out of 10 articles you find on the internet will tell you how great Canada's health care system is. Here are a couple that don't...

• Canada Health System Needs More Money (New York Times)
• Canada Embraces Private Health Care (CSMonitor)

It is not just in Canada either. We can look within our own nations borders for more examples. I remember when Tennessee passed huge legislative reforms on health care back in the 90's. Yes, many people who were uninsured now had coverage. The trade-offs though were unmanageable wait times, deteriorating facilities, and lower quality care, not to mention higher taxes to cover the entire thing.

• Tennessee's Alternative to Medicaid (LA Times)
• Lessons from Tennessee (Heritage Foundation)