Many people don’t enjoy discussing politics. Coming across people who do is an exciting opportunity. This weekend, I was able to engage in an invigorating discussion about free universal health care with a young woman from Germany. Our voices rose and fell as we challenged each other’s views and searched for a way to compromise. In the end, we agreed to disagree. One might think that this was an unsatisfactory result of the conversation — neither of our views changed. In actuality, the conversation resulted in an understanding of differing opinions and a greater awareness of our own beliefs. The discourse we had caused me to ponder how many people actually know both sides of the story. It also challenged me to better understand my own argument.
My argument stems from my life experience and what I know of the issue. I was raised in a family that promoted hard work and self-industry, which influences my research of public policy particularly health care. The young woman’s opinion was that free health care is a right. She believed that health was something the government was required to provide to all people. She specifically mentioned those who are too poor to help themselves.
While this argument plays on our emotions it does not take into account all of the adverse side effects free health care could cause. For example, my argument is that healthcare is not a right, but a choice. There are non-profits and government-run hospitals that provide services to those who don’t have insurance. It is also illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. This solves the issue of the uninsured not receiving care in dire situations. Helping the poor is always a just notion, however. Facts and evidence cannot be forsaken for emotion.
When looking at the facts it is clear that someone must pay for the “free” health care system. This is not a tangible system because nothing is free. It would raise taxes and take money from other programs such as education or defense. In an effort to cut costs, price and salary controls on drugs, medical equipment and medical services are likely to be put in place. This would cause less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development and investment. As a program run by the government, patient confidentiality is likely to disappear. Finally, malpractice lawsuits are likely to increase as the government, which has enormous amounts of money, is held accountable as the insurer of health care. The adverse side effects question the viability of free health care.
Additionally, history has shown that competition is more effective at controlling prices. Without the insurance industry profit motives, competition and individual ingenuity will cease to exist. The quality of health care options would decline under a government-run program and the options that people enjoy would disappear. Consumers would no longer be able to choose the plan that works for them. They would be forced to comply under a plan that has too little or too much and be forced to pay for everyone to enjoy the same problem.
While everyone has a different opinion, it is important to understand the facts rather than become caught up in the emotion of an argument. For example, a free health care system sounds good but is not actually tangible when looking at the side effects. Better understanding of the facts can lead to informed voting. This then leads to a stronger democracy led by the people, which is the basis of what the United States stands for.
