National Health Insurance is a topic which is heavily debated by people from every end of the spectrum. Many proponents of this system of insurance, which is completely paid for by the federal government, point to other countries such as Canada and Britain when arguing for the success and the usefulness of such a program. However, the grass always appears to be greener on the other side and the reality is that a program of national health insurance in America would be a terrible idea which will not be a solution to America’s medical insurance problems.
Although it may solve the problem of providing health insurance the millions of Americans who currently do not have insurance, it will bring with it a slew of problems of its own. One of the major problems of national health insurance is that countries which have this type of insurance often attempt to spend money more frugally, which may end up causing their research and technology to lag behind; thus hurting the efficiency and capabilities of the countries medical treatment. John Goodman of heritage.
org says that when considering the availability of modern technology and comparing Canada to America that, “there are eight times more MRI units, seven times more radiation therapy units, and about six time more lithotripsy units in the United States as there are in Canada. The U. S. also has about three times more open-heart surgery units and cardiac catheterization units per capita as Canada has. ” These are modern technologies that help do many things from treating cancer to preventing heart attacks better than previous technology.
Canada, and many other countries with national health insurance, often chooses to wait when considering new technology in order to first see how effective, efficient, and costly the new technology is before buying in large quantities; therefore it can be deduced that because national health insurance is so costly to a government, it creates a frugality that slows the development and quality of health care in a country. Another major problem with national health insurance is that one of two decisions has to be made; neither one is a good one.
The first is that health care is rationed, forcing the government to devise a method to decide who is truly in need of care and who is not. This is not good because there will undoubtedly be people who do not receive care due to a low allocation of funds despite truly needing it. The other option, which is how some countries such as Britain and New Zealand deal with it, is to give health care to everyone who comes to the door. The obvious problem with this is that if everyone who had a problem knew they could receive free care, hospitals would be overcrowded and people would be forced to wait until space cleared up for them.
“In Britain, with a population of about 55 million, the number of people waiting for surgery is almost 800,000. In New Zealand, with a population of three million, the waiting list is currently about 50,000 (Goodman 1). ” These are just two examples of what happens when everyone in a country seeks treatment for a medical need. Also, with an American national health insurance is the question of how it would be paid for. After all, the money has to come from somewhere.
Should the federal government start another special tax which is designed specifically to pay for health costs, or should it simply increase taxes and pay for it out of the federal budget? Other questions arise with this as well. Is it fair for the upper and middle class citizens to have to pay for the rest of the country to receive health insurance? It would also be a bad idea to start taking incentives away from hard working Americans. What good is it to work hard if you are a middle class citizen if you can get the same benefits for doing much less?
All of these questions contribute to the very large problem of funding national health insurance. Lastly, just as important of an issue, is that there is a better way to get health care to Americans without creating a national health insurance program. A much better solution to providing health care are medical savings accounts also known as MSAs. These are accounts in which an individual as well as an employer can make contributions to in order to pay for health care. These contributions are tax deductible and are owned and controlled by the individual.
It is like a savings account except that it is to be used purely for medical care and that there is a major incentive for contributing which is a tax deduction. The other major benefit of this system is that, because people are essentially spending their own money, they will make good decisions on where to go for treatment and this will lower spending. “The RAND Corporation conducted a study of changes in people’s health care decision-making in relation to the size of the consumer’s co-payment. The study found that an individual who had to pay 50 percent of the cost of health care spent 25 percent less than an individual with no co-payment.
The study also showed that, contrary to the assertions of some critics, those reduced expenditures are not caused by individuals’ forgoing truly necessary health care (Tanner 1). ” Having a solution such as MSAs is just the last nail in the coffin in which national health insurance lies. A national health insurance plan would simply not be efficient medically or economically.
Works Cited Goodman, John. “Beware of National Health Insurance. ” The Heritage Foundation. 2006. 17 Apr. 2006 . Tanner, Michael. “Why The Campaign Against MSAs? ” CATO Institute . 17 Apr. 2006. 17 Apr. 2006 .