Socialized medicine, found in various countries, is a healthcare service owned by all citizens. It ensures universal accessibility to healthcare regardless of individuals’ financial capacity and plays a vital role in a nation’s economy.
Many individuals have concerns about the financial burden of illness or injury. However, socialized medicine provides a solution by offering healthcare to all individuals, regardless of their ability to pay. This guarantees that everyone receives care without having to worry about costs. The World Health Organization, part of the United Nations, considers healthcare a basic human right. Implementing national health care systems could lead to an increase in life expectancy as healthcare providers become government employees and costs are reduced. Moreover, there would be a decrease in malpractice suits since taking legal action against the government is challenging (Carol 1994).
The impact of economics on a nation’s economy determines whether socialized medicine is beneficial or detrimental. In the United States, there are various programs that embody elements of socialized medicine, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration Federal medicine, and health departments. The National Center for Public Policy Research has pointed out that government involvement in healthcare increased from 42% in 1990 to over 50% in 1992 due to rising expenses. According to the Heritage Foundation, healthcare expenditures accounted for 13.9% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1993 and rose to 15.6% in 1995. Contrary to common belief, the increase in medical costs cannot be solely attributed to drug manufacturers, insurance companies, physicians, and hospitals; it is primarily driven by the growing demand for medical services (Oatman 11-34).
+
Oatman (40) states that the government’s efforts to implement healthcare have led to hospitals becoming overwhelmed with trivial and unnecessary health care needs. This surge has resulted in emergency rooms treating common ailments like colds, headaches, and minor scrapes. Consequently, Medicare is expected to become obsolete by 2002, just 8 years before the retirement of 77 million baby boomers. The only believed solution to sustain the country would be a significant tax increase.
Countries such as Canada, Great Britain, France, and Germany are experiencing financial constraints and service difficulties in their national health care systems. Moreover, they also confront the issue of their top doctors moving to the United States’ free market health care system. It is crucial to note that these health care systems have a dual-tier framework, where affluent individuals have access to private hospitals and insurance for receiving the same level of health care as average Americans (Peikoff 1994).
Canada’s national health care system is encountering a range of challenges, including the closure of multiple hospitals for cost-saving reasons. This can be observed in the significant number of Canadian health care professionals seeking employment in the United States. A case in point is Robert Bourassa, former Premier of Quebec, who traveled to Washington D.C. to consult with the National Cancer Institute after being diagnosed with melanoma. Similarly, John Moore, former Cabinet Minister responsible for the British National Health Service, sought treatment for pneumonia at a private hospital. The preference demonstrated by the British Royal Family towards private hospitals underscores the failure of socialized medicine, which has even been acknowledged by government officials through their own actions (Mc Cuen, 1988).
Establishing health care as a right would result in decreased wealth and reduced quality of care for the medical profession. In the traditional American system, access to health care is based on affordability and earned through actions and efforts. However, Pierre argues that everyone should have a government-provided entitlement to free hair care. This leads individuals to consistently seek expensive new hairstyles, causing increased government spending and significant income growth for hairstylists. Comparatively speaking, it is difficult to imagine hairstylists earning an income comparable to doctors or nurses – though not identical levels, this raises concerns. Furthermore, various cosmetic procedures such as hair implants, eyebrow plucks, breast implants, nose jobs, dental expenses, tummy tucks, and any other desired or necessary plastic surgeries are also provided at no cost.
Beauty schools are highly sought after and their tuition fees have dramatically increased. Beauticians are working tirelessly and spending large sums of money to meet each customer’s desire for a luxurious and elegant appearance, evoking the allure of millionaires, by providing exceptional hair care and service (Sherrow 1994).
The government is attempting to control the budget through cost-saving measures in the hair industry, which involve limiting barbers, enforcing time restrictions for haircuts, and regulating hairstyles. However, despite these efforts, the government struggles to effectively monitor the number of barbers. Additionally, they establish a costly computerized office of records with inspectors, even though it is recognized as an unnecessary expense. Nevertheless, certain barbers continue to make excessive profits. Consequently, barbers now require Certificates of Need for purchasing razors due to inflated prices, taxes, and expensive equipment. All of these factors contribute to the difficulties faced when running a profitable barbering business.
In a perfect society, all individuals would have equal access to the fundamental rights recognized by society. Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that nobody has the entitlement to demand professional services solely based on their desires or urgent needs. In these situations, alternatives like charity or exempting elderly individuals from taxes can be considered. It is understandable that some people may not be able to afford health insurance if they have chosen not to invest in a policy. While certain things can be foregone during times of economic hardship caused by politicians and bureaucrats, one’s health cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is crucial that our health, as well as yours and mine, should not depend on government control.
If the medical profession genuinely believes in providing healthcare for everyone as a right, then those who consider it a right should offer free healthcare instead of relying on government involvement and taxation for funding. As mentioned by Szumskie (72-87), “If the medical profession is so compassionate, why do we charge people for our services? That isn’t compassionate.”
Residents in Quebec are well-acquainted with socialized medicine, which limits their access to hospital, laundry, and cafeteria services. The healthcare system in Quebec has been debating the integration of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO’s). These HMO’s would be completely funded and regulated by the public health insurance system. Despite this, the government of Quebec has consistently opposed implementing HMO’s because they fear that individuals who are used to socialized medicine would be resistant to transitioning to an HMO model (Mc Cuen 1988).
In Quebec, a majority (62 percent) of the population believes that medical consultations should be provided without charge, according to Carol (1994). Additionally, an even larger proportion (82 percent) holds the belief that hospital care should continue to be offered at no cost. These findings suggest that residents of Quebec perceive their government as responsible for their healthcare.
Those opposed to private healthcare are against competition and private enterprise, rejecting the notion that some individuals may use their finances to acquire superior healthcare. They believe in equal distribution for all, even if it means reducing the quality for everyone. Such a stance is morally and socially undesirable.
It’s important to understand that free public medicine is not truly free. Although the consumer may not directly pay for it, the cost is ultimately covered by taxpayers at a high interest rate. In Quebec, public health expenses make up 29 percent of the government budget. One-fifth of the funding is derived from a 3.22 percent tax imposed on employers, while the remainder is supplied through general federal taxes overseen by the public health insurance system.
The government of Quebec consistently opposes HMOs, which poses challenges for those benefiting from socialized medicine. Access to the public health system costs approximately $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen. As a result, a family with two children pays nearly $5,000 annually for public health insurance, surpassing the cost of most private health insurance plans. However, government regulations prohibit private doctors from charging rates higher than those established by the government. Since basic medical needs do not require private insurance, there is a restricted customer base. Consequently, less than one percent of Quebec doctors work outside the public health system and all doctors within this system engage in illegal operations as private insurers are prevented from competing with public health insurance. The high expense of hospital care hinders the growth of a genuine private hospital industry as it remains unaffordable for most individuals. Currently, Quebec only has one privately-owned hospital operating alongside the constraints of the public health insurance system and governmental budgets.
Despite the presence of the basic health insurance, the public health care system encounters difficulties in adjusting to changing requirements and technological advancements. The development of day clinics and home care services lags behind, while individuals have limited options for hospitals, restricted to non-profit local hospitals or university hospitals. Consequently, individuals have a constrained range of choices when seeking top-quality care and must also take into account the cost implications.
Socialized medicine guarantees medical care for all individuals, regardless of their wealth. It particularly benefits underprivileged individuals and children by providing them with peace of mind and security in healthcare. Additionally, it creates the opportunity to work as government employees. Although socialized medicine may have adverse effects on a country’s economy, it ultimately ensures coverage for all citizens throughout their entire lives.
Journals:
McCuen, G. (1988). “Health care systems: a global perspective”. Poor and minority health care, Vol. 1, p.54-109.
The author of “The question of quality” is E. Oatman, published in National medical care, Volume 50, pages 11-34.
Sherrow, V. (1994). “The flight over access, quality, and cost”. The health care crisis, Vol.4, p. 9-23.
Carol, (1994). “Socialization of medicine”. Socialist views, Vol. 1, p. 134-157.
Szumkie, B. (1989) “World health care”. The health care crisis: opposing viewpoints, Vol. 4, p. 72-87.
Books:
Thiroux, J. (1995). Ethics Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Internet:
Peikoff, J. “Socialized medicine vs. private health care” {http://www.freemarket.org/features/spotlight/980.html}.
