Healthcare isn't Broken

It has become a ‘truth:’ healthcare is broken.

But, what is broken about it? Today, in the US, 100% of the people in this country, whether here legally or not, whether they can afford to pay for it or not, are accounted all the emergency care they need. If you have an accident, you will get health care.

Today, 85% of the citizens of this country have health insurance.

Today, the poorest 20% of the citizens of this country have health insurance.

If you are truly sick there are clinics and facilities in this country that can match or better those anywhere in the world, in the treatment of any affliction.

So, what is broken? The answer, the pundits will tell us, is that we spend too much on healthcare AND there are too many people who can’t afford comprehensive care AND there is that nagging 15% who don’t have health insurance. That constitutes ‘broken.’

So, let’s ask a few questions. How much should we spend on healthcare? Right now we – all of us – spend an average of (roughly) $9000 per year on healthcare, including government subsidies. Is that too much? We spend more than that on our cars.

Ask the question another way: how much is your health worth? Ask it in pieces: how much is your hand worth? Would it be worth spending $100,000 to have your hand put back together if it were severely damaged? Or would that be ‘too much?’ How sick would you be willing to be if you could spend $1000 less per year on healthcare?

There is a bumper sticker that says ‘If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.’ The same can be said of healthcare; if you think healthcare is expensive, try sickness.

Yet we are on the verge of turning control of healthcare over to the government. Is there a guarantee involved? If this turns out to be more expensive then $100 BILLION per year, can we roll this back? If the government starts rationing healthcare, can we end this piece of legislation? If the research labs that made all of the ground-breaking pharmaceuticals close up and stop their (expensive) research, will we fund their resurrection, just as we funded GM?

We have a healthcare system right now that is expensive, but very successful. But not perfect. We are about to turn it over to the federal government and a bureaucracy that has been repeatedly shown to have a great deal of difficulty managing the funds we already give them. Now we want to give them more funds AND the responsibility of managing our health. Does that really sound like the best path?

We as a nation can always seek to improve. We all certainly want the best healthcare possible – though we don’t know how to define that. What is certain is that the government program is not directed at producing more healthcare: it won’t ‘grow’ more doctors, nurses and hospitals; nor is it directed at improving healthcare: there is no comprehensive plan to improve research into new technologies, new treatments or new drugs. Yet, somehow things will “get better” if we centralize control and drop a bunch of money into a government owned bucket.

Our healthcare isn’t perfect. But the question is this: do you believe that centralizing the control of healthcare into a single bureaucracy will lead to improved and (mysteriously) lower costs? Or, is it more likely that centralizing the control of 1/7th of the economy will lead to the growth of a large and complicated bureaucracy that is likely to stifle creativity? What is the track record of the federal government with large programs? It’s worth asking the question: we are talking about our own health.