Health Care

Philosophos: Interesting thoughts. I most definitely agree with you on the need to be vigilant and on guard against even minor breaches of our liberty by the government. Let’s transition from general thoughts on health to specific thoughts about health care. First question: do we have a right to health care?

Nomodiphas: No we don’t. And I’m going to guess that by making this into a right we will further corrupt the field as well as further corrupt the government.

Philosophos: Exactly. Benevolence in the field of medicine used to be common. Just as lawyers do pro bono work doctors used to provide free services for patients who could not afford treatment. This phenomenon has largely disappeared with the advent of programs like Medicare and social security. Further the government is a non market participant and its involvement in the field increases prices across the board. Hospitals can charge limitless amounts for procedures that the government will fund through these programs. This cuts against efficiency.

Nomodiphas: I understand the problems of governmental involvement, but you can’t begin to defend the current system.

Philosophos: Of course the current system is full of problems, I simply believe that there are better solutions to it than state sponsored universal health care and that further government involvement in health care would make matters worse and not better. Look at the countries that have universal health care. Because everything is covered (notice I use the word covered and not free because these systems do cost money, lots of money like ours, the only difference is that it is paid collectively rather than individually) there is less incentive to take care of yourself or administer home remedies. So people over use the system. This creates a strain on the system. Just the other day I read that a woman died in labor in Japan after an ambulance took her to nearly 30 hospitals. Not one hospital had sufficient room to take her, so she died in the ambulance after hours of searching in vain.

Now the government can respond in a couple of different ways to this strain. It can hire more doctors and raise the cost of the system. This in turn costs tax payers more money. Or the government can require doctors to do more with less and have them try to visit more patients. Visits then become less comprehensive and effective. Further in both cases patients are often required to wait longer for visits (often months at a time). This extra time can complicate some disorders and sicknesses and people may in fact die in the extra time it takes for them to see a doctor. When the people resist paying higher taxes for their inefficient, overused health care system, the government has to cut costs. They give less money to research companies (with less money for research there is less innovation in medicine and procedures and a decline in cures) and less money to doctors (when doctors make less money there is less incentive for our best and brightest to invest themselves in a field that requires years of extra education, long hours, and high levels of stress).

I visited Prague a few years back. While I was there I took a tour of the city. I asked the guide if this was a full time or part time job. She said she was only working part time as a tour guide, but she was hoping it would become a full time job. At that time her full time job was that of a doctor, but she could make more money being a tour guide. She explained to me that the Czech Republic has a nationalized health care system. The government provides health care for all, but also determines the pay of those working in the health care field. In order to keep taxes down it must keep costs down and it does that by keeping wages down. This tour guide told me she regretted investing ten years of her life into becoming a doctor when it turns out she can’t make good money. She said that in response to the inadequate compensation, the youth of her country were wizening up and not going into the medical field as they were before. This of course will hurt the country’s health care long term as the best and the brightest go into different fields.

Nomodiphas: If state sponsored health care is not a viable option, what is the solution?

Philosophos: I’ll be honest, I am by no means an expert in this field, but I do have a few hunches. First and foremost there should be more of a focus on prevention, rather than fixing problems after the fact. Simply eating healthy and exercising prevent a whole host of problems. Second, more health care should be performed at the family level. When I was growing up my parents took care of most of my health problems. Instead of the doctor being our first choice, it was a last resort saved for emergencies. I think people are too quick to run to the doctor. Prevention coupled with home remedies would probably solve most of our health problems. As for the problems that prevention and home remedies can’t solve, I would leave them to the market. The market will ensure that doctors are adequately compensated for the time they invest in their education, as well as for the hours they work and the stress involved in their job. The market encourages innovation and research to create quicker and more efficient ways to cure problems. The market ensures that people will not overuse and abuse the system. Further, if there is a shortage of doctors the market will make sure that more doctors join the field, thereby reducing wait times.

Nomodiphas: But what of those who can’t afford health care?

Philosophos: First off I doubt there are many people in this country that truly cannot afford health care. I would bet that many people who ‘can’t afford health care’ have money for cable TV, money to go out to eat, have money to spend at the bars, or on cigarettes—they have money for health care they just choose to spend it on other things. If health care was a priority, they would save money for it or get insurance, but it isn’t and why should the government require others to pay for their health care when they have money for everything else they want? Why should we through our government subsidize their irresponsible lifestyles?

Second, you have to remember that government action stifles acts of mercy. If the government today would stop paying for people’s health care I promise you that private individuals and communities would come together and through acts of charity take care of the weak in their midst. Further doctors would resume the abandoned practice of providing free care to the truly needy.

I am not surprised at all that people want the government to provide health care for them and that people even go as far as to say that health care is a right. People have been conditioned to think that it is the government’s job to keep them from the negative consequences of their decisions. They think the government must rehabilitate criminals and give drug treatment to addicts. They think that if people make poor choices and fall into poverty it is the government’s responsibility to provide them with food and shelter. The government takes money from people when they are young so if they fail to have the foresight to save for their retirement they don’t have to suffer the consequences. Why should the field of health be any different?

You see this all the time. How often do you hear about people that smoke or are obese, people that completely fail to take care of themselves? And when they get sick they think the government has a responsibility to take care of them. Or someone that has reckless sex and contracts AIDS and complains that the government does not do enough for them. The same goes with those mentioned before that have money to go out drinking every week, but when they are sick they curse the government for not providing health care for them. Justice requires us to be held responsible for our actions. The government should encourage responsibility instead of engaging in acts of mercy that prevent people from facing the consequences of their choices. What will compel people to repent and live Godly lives if they can live as they wish and face no consequences?

Lastly, the government’s involvement in the field of health care destroys liberty. Instead of people taking responsibility for their actions and taking care of themselves, they rely on the government to take care of them. They see the government less and less as their creation and servant and more and more as their good intentioned big brother, their savior. When people look to and rely on the government for the solution to their self induced problems they accept injustice and restrictions on their liberty so long as the government takes care of them. They cease to be citizens and at once become slaves. They accept all the government says without question so long as their needs and desires are met.

Once again we see how government involvement in a field not its own corrupts the field and makes it inefficient, drives out mercy, and corrupts the main function of the government itself.