Ok, Since I've Heard About Enough Claptrap About This...

It's time for me to explain the HUGE, GLARING FLAWS in the idea of "universal healthcare."

I will use small words, and go slowly. Try to keep up; this is really challenging.

First: HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT.

This is very simple. Healthcare is a service, provided by someone. You do not have a "right" to the fruit of someone else's labor. You DO have a right to bargain with them, and agree on an acceptable trade. But you simply do NOT have a "right" to just plain TAKE it from them.

Second: HEALTHCARE IS EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT.

This shouldn't be too challenging. Let's give it a go.

"Value" is something that is nearly impossible to define directly, because it is inherent in the recipient. That is to say, something you buy has value - it is worth (this is the important bit) WHATEVER YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

Healthcare has value. We all agree on that. HOW MUCH value it has, is something dependent on YOU - how much are YOU willing to pay for it?

The government artificially inflates prices for healthcare; this is by virtue of insurance regulations, and laws requiring insurers to act in certain ways.

How this works is, likewise, simple. Healthcare is worth what you are willing to pay for it. BUT, if "you" is a huge insurance company, and you claim that - for example - a CAT scan is worth $1500, and are willing to pay $1500 for it, repeatedly, then you are the hospitals' primary customer; you have set the price, because you buy more of them than anyone else. Now, Joe Schmoe might not think a CAT scan is worth that much; after all, once the machine is paid for, it costs the hospital maybe a total of $450 to run one - counting the power, the computers, the technician, and the doc's time to interpret it; therefore to Joe Schmoe, it should cost somewhere in the region of $600.

But Joe Schmoe is irrelevant, thanks to the huge insurance company; because the government requires HMO's to set static rates for medical procedures, the insurance company - which buys many hundreds of times more CAT scans that Joe Schmoe is ever likely to - has set the price so high that Joe Schmoe, if he's not insured, cannot afford.

But without that regulation, that interference in the marketplace, the price for a CAT scan, or any other medical treatment, would be far lower, because the customer base requires it.

Added to which, if the governmental regulations weren't in place, the market would be able to correct itself, HMO's or no.

The sequence of events goes something like this: Genius surgeon convinces hospital board of directors that they really want to make a fortune instead of dicking around. Hospital board of directors (boards of directors are inherently very stupid, and never EVER display any initiative; initiative is inherently individual) then cuts their profit margin from - say, 200% - down to - say, 25%.

The price of a CAT scan drops from $1500 to $625 - but only for that one hospital.

Suddenly, not only Joe Schmoes are showing up for them, but the HMOs realize that they could continue to charge their customers the same rates, yet save themselves a bundle, thus making their boards of directors very happy; they quickly contract to route as many of their CAT scans through the really cheap place as they can.

This has two effects: first, it makes the cheap place a fortune, because you have more pies at a tenth apiece of fifty than you do at a fifth apiece of five; and secondly, it re-values the CAT scan at $625. Other hospitals are suddenly incapable of selling a CAT scan to save their ass, because the guy down the street has it for a third of their price. They scramble to catch up; the price drops.

...Some months down the road, the HMOs are forced to lower the price of their services, because customers aren't willing to pay their huge premiums when they could afford care WITHOUT HMOs, if they just put the money in a mason jar; in order to stay viable, HMOs' premiums drop precipitously. This puts their service in range - pricewise - of a lot more Joe Schmoes than previously, and makes it a good value; many new members join up; suddenly healthcare is a lot more nearly "universal" than it was before, and ALL YOU DID WAS REMOVE THAT GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE.

Back to the idea of "universal" healthcare. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the people running for President of the USA right now has offered vague promises of "healthcare for everyone!"

This is easy to promise. They don't have to actually deliver it; as soon as they are elected, those plans will fall by the wayside.

The reason for that is very simple: our society, regardless of how people might bitch about it, is NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR THAT.

In order to provide a Canada- or U.K. - style "universal" healthcare system, huge new taxes would have to be enacted. Now, I know everybody's knee-jerk reaction is "tax the rich," but here's the bottom line, for those of you who don't understand taxation: ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE POOREST WORKERS IN THE COUNTRY.

I don't mean the poorest PEOPLE, mind you; folks taking their sustenance from the government already are inherently incapable of paying taxes. I mean, specifically, the poorest WORKERS, pay all taxes. If you levy a tax on Bill Gates, so that he has to pay say $5,000 for each new car he buys, just because he's Bill Gates, guess what? He won't buy any more cars. That doesn't hurt him; it hurts all the millions of workers, all down the product's development chain, all the way down to the miners pulling iron ore out of the ground, who have less work, and therefore less wages, because GM didn't sell that car. It hurts the stockholders, who are likely richer than you and I; and they react the same way, with the same, if lesser effects; they tighten their financial belts one more notch, and the poor folks have one less tiny bit on their paycheck because of it.

So; when you levy a gigantic new tax, to pay for "universal" health care, guess who takes it in the teeth? The poorest workers in America, that's who.

Anyone advocating "universal" healthcare through any means other than removing governmental regulations and controlling malpractice lawsuits, is advocating giving the working poor a screwing from which they will never recover, and the result will be the same as it has been in Canada and the U.K. - apocalyptic wait times, and frequently botched surgery. The quality of care will drop; the treatment options will become far more limited; and worst of all, YOU WILL HAVE NO CHOICE.

Don't be that guy.