Socialized Medicine: A ‘Sicko’ (1)
The infamous low-bud-get and controversial movie producer, Mi-chael Moore, arch-critic of US President Bush, came out with a new docu-film, "Sicko," released July 27, 2007, denouncing the US Healthcare system and advocating Socialized Medicine. The title "Sicko," in my opinion, more aptly describes Moore and his concept than the current healthcare delivery in America.Otherwise known as a "government, or nationalized, or state-sponsored healthcare system," Socialized Medicine provides what is supposed to be "free" medical care to the people. And this is a misconception, if not a myth. Actually, it is not free, because the funding comes from the massive taxes levied by the government on its citizens. The people are really the ones who pay for their healthcare, with the exorbitant taxes collected from them by the state through mandated steeper taxation. This government-controlled medical care delivery is akin to nationally-sponsored veterans hospitals or provincial/city funded public or charity hospitals in the Philippines, or in the United States.
What does the United States have?
The USA has a free enterprise, private, system of healthcare delivery, where its citizens have a choice, and the options include personal out-of-pocket medical expenses, private insurance coverage (like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc.) which they, or their employees, could buy for them, or thru an HMO or PPO, which they could join, and the government-funded Medicare entitlements for all citizens who are 65 and over. Unfortunately, the Democrats in general, exemplified by Hillary Clinton, are in favor of government-controlled, nationalized, or socialized medicine for the country. Thanks to the Republicans, this move has been (and will always be) rebuked and thwarted to protect the integrity of the health care for its people. The imperfections within the US health care system are a direct result of statism, government intervention, and not the failure of its current healthcare delivery system itself. While the existing US healthcare delivery system is not perfect, it provides prompt access to state-of-the-art quality medical care second to none, compared to socialized medicine, where a long wait for medical services is a rule rather than an exception.
Which countries have socialized medicine?
Some of the nations with socialized medicine include the Great Britain and other European countries, Canada, the former USSR, Australia, New Zealand, and Cuba. And practically without exception, the plague of socialized medicine has victimized the citizens of these countries, who are up in arms, vehemently complaining about their "sicko" government-sponsored/managed healthcare delivery system. Like the United States, the Philippines, and many Asian countries, have the fee-for-service free enterprise system of healthcare.
How do people like socialized medicine?
People in those countries who have experienced their government-sponsored healthcare delivery system are mostly unhappy and frustrated, because, while medical care is "free," access to such "free care" is difficult. Most patients have to wait in a long queue, often for weeks, if not months, to obtain the medical services they need. This inefficiency and delays, and the concern about quality of care, have led affluent people in those countries to outsource surgical services to the United States or to Asian countries, where Medical Tourism is a multi-billion dollar new and rapidly evolving industry today. Some of the serious disadvantages of socialized medicine are listed below and continued in this column next Saturday, together with a number of most revealing and critical news headlines in those countries printed and televised media condemning their nationalized government-sponsored healthcare system.
1. To begin with, to provide the so-called "free" healthcare to all its citizens, the government must get the money from somewhere, and act like a health insurance company. To fund socialized medicine, which is exorbitantly expensive, the government must collect inordinately greater taxes from the people. In essence, it’s actually the people who are paying for their own medical care, so in reality it is not "free" healthcare, after all.
2. The high taxes collected from, say, Peter, who is healthy, will be used to pay the medical care of Paul. And if the latter continues to abuse his health, by living an unhealthy lifestyle, and requires repeated medical care, Peter’s taxes will continue to drain from the government coffers. Since people can see a doctor or go to the emergency room, even for a simple cold or headache, because it is "free" and they do not have to pay, they abuse the system, leading to a very high cost of overburdened healthcare system. So, there is that abuse and inequity. In the free enterprise system, you pay for your own healthcare expenses, so if you abuse yourself, you pay for it, and other people do not have to be burdened to pay for your medical expenses. There is more equity, fairness, and responsibility in this system.
3. To begin with, to provide the so-called "free" healthcare to all its citizens, the government must get the money from somewhere, and act like a health insurance company. To fund socialized medicine, which is exorbitantly expensive, the government must collect inordinately greater taxes from the people. In essence, it’s actually the people who are paying for their own medical care, so in reality it is not "free" healthcare, after all.
