Sick and Twisted… Healthcare in the US of A
By slick514 on Mar 22, 2010 in Uncategorized | 3 Comments
Question: “Should government be intimately involved with healthcare, beyond simple regulation?”
Actually, before we can really talk about healthcare, we first have to agree on another, very fundamental question: “What is the role of government?” Most of the arguments I’ve heard about during the healthcare debate are actually related to this second question.
So I posit that the primary role of an ideal government is as a mediating entity; that is, governments exist in populations of any size mainly to make sure that one person’s (or group of people’s) actions do not impinge upon the rights/freedoms of another person or group. Essentially, we have laws to keep people from injuring, defrauding or harassing one another.
In some cases, when evidence shows that an overall net good will result, certain policies may be followed to improve the standard of living of the population; however, care must be taken when implementing such policies, lest you actually end up with a socialist or fascist state. Examples of such policies might be social security, medicare, control over crop pricing via farm subsidies, tariffs on international trade, and the control of narcotics. Understandably, people often disagree over where exactly the line in the sand lies with regards to these policies. Thankfully, our government structure and Constitution gives us some flexibility in this regard; as our culture changes we can, with some effort, change government policies to better fit our society.
Although I do believe that government has a place in ensuring that a minimum standard of workplace safety and workers rights is enforced, generally speaking I endorse a laissez faire approach when it comes to government interaction with business and the markets in general. (When it comes to the financial sector, my feelings diverge from this significantly, but that’s a whole other topic…) So why do I support healthcare reform? Why let government get their hands all over a sector that (as I have heard all too often in the past few months) makes up around a fifth of our economy?
The basic (and commonly accepted) laws of economics revolve around supply/scarcity and demand. Essentially, greater supply or lower demand of a given commodity drives the cost down for that item, while greater demand or lower supply for an item drives the cost up. Under a given set of constraints, these forces ensure that items are somewhat fairly priced. For this to hold up, it is generally accepted that buyer and seller are operating on a level playing-field: Buyers and sellers must compete with other buyers and sellers in the marketplace; All parties are at least somewhat informed and are assumed to make decisions that are in their own best interest; Either party can walk away from a transaction that is not to their liking.
Now then, there are certain commodities for which this breaks down rather quickly. Water, food… and to a lesser extent, energy related items like electricity and petroleum. These are things that you can’t really walk away from; If you don’t have them, your situation degrades rather quickly. If a single supplier, or a small group of suppliers, can gain control over a resource such as this, they can pretty much name their price, and the idea of a fair capitalist market collapses. It is fairly common to find such commodities heavily regulated or even directly run by governments in the interest of consumer protection.
I believe that basic healthcare is such a commodity. If a person has a serious illness, or a condition which severely impacts their daily life, that person doesn’t really have the option to just walk away if the price of treatment is outrageous. Not only can the health-insurance industry name it’s price, but they’ve shown time and again that they have no problem maximizing their profit margins by cutting off benefits to patients in need for the most spurious of reasons: They’ll take your money without asking too many questions, but when it comes to paying out they’ll drop you for a typo on your application, or an improperly filled out medical record.
I’ve heard people say that this is the end of the USA as we know it; that we’re turning into a socialist state. I just don’t see it. We have public schools, and public libraries. We have an effective military, (which has a pretty good publicly run health care system for it’s members and veterans!). We already have medicare and medicaid. As any industry does, these institutions are not without flaws, some of which can be pretty serious, but I don’t view that as somehow reflecting on government ineptitude as much as human nature in general. Where there are people, there are going to be problems. Just as we are struggling with our education system, we are going to have to struggle with healthcare. But is anyone arguing that it’s not important to guarantee each child an education? Why then is there so much controversy with guaranteeing each citizen in the most prosperous nation on earth a basic standard of healthcare? Is being poor somehow a sin? I know that we have this perception in America that everyone who works hard should have no problem being successful, but if you stop to actually think about that, it’s nowhere near reality. For every welfare-queen out there, there’s someone who worked for years developing a skillset that was abruptly replaced by a technological advancement. We all take different paths, and often the only difference between success and failure is a roll of the dice.
A successful modern society is a blend of capitalism and socialism. Like most things in life, when you stray too far from the center, you are going to run into problems. Somehow, we’ve adopted this idea that capitalism is the only way to go, but I don’t see that as any more healthy than adopting a purely socialist approach. Both capitalism and socialism have their strengths and weaknesses. We should use a mix of the two to best serve both our society as a whole, as well as each individual citizen.

