Would Making Healthcare Free in the U.S. Be More Expensive Due to Higher Taxes or Cheaper Due to No Insurance Payments/Co-pays?
The late pundit-economist P. J. O’Rourke famously said, ldquo;If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it is 'free.'rdquo; This statement reflects a common skepticism about the efficiency and effectiveness of government-provided services, particularly healthcare. However, the benefits of universal healthcare are often overlooked, especially when compared to the current system in the U.S.
Theoretical Considerations vs. Practical Reality
Not to be cynical but, everything that the government does, it does less well than the private sector. Whether it's delivering mail and parcels, building roads and office buildings, or paying out money, it doesn’t matter. In the private sector, there is a clear incentive to improve and excel, as the success of a business is directly tied to its bottom line. However, in the public sector, there is no such reward for excellence, and there is no penalty for mediocrity or even incompetence.
For the federal government to provide healthcare, it would have to own and operate hospitals, clinics, and labs, employ doctors, nurses, and technicians, and establish a system where everyone is taken care of without undue delay. The sickest or most injured people would be cared for first. The mind reels at how poorly the government would likely manage such an endeavor.
Other Countries’ Success
Every other civilized nation, and indeed even some that are not so civilized, has figured this out. It costs the people roughly half of what healthcare costs in the U.S. for individuals, and with higher quality outcomes. If the U.S. cannot figure this out, what does it say about our civilization? Clearly, it indicates that Americans are not too dumb to implement universal healthcare. Instead, it suggests that those controlling the current medical systems have no desire to stop their gravy train.
Consider the statistics: the U.S. spends half again more per person on healthcare than any other country in the world and spends a greater percentage of its total GDP on healthcare than any other country. Yet, it gets less for all those dollars than many other "developed" countries, ranking 30th in overall quality of care and healthcare outcomes, such as life expectancy, maternal and fetal mortality, and numerous other measures.
Commonalities Among Leading Countries with Universal Healthcare
What do the 29 countries ahead of the U.S. have in common? They all have tax-supported universal healthcare systems. These systems are not only more efficient but also achieve better health outcomes. For example, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all have universal healthcare systems that are funded through taxes and deliver better care at a lower cost.
Challenges and Transition
Transitioning to a universal healthcare system in the U.S. would involve significant changes, including:
1. Funding: The government would need to reallocate resources and potentially increase taxes to fund the system.
2. Reform of the Current System: Private healthcare providers would need to be integrated into the new system, which could involve eliminating for-profit healthcare companies.
3. Implementation: Establishing a new healthcare framework would require significant administrative and logistical changes.
Conclusion
While implementing free healthcare in the U.S. would initially necessitate higher taxes, the long-term benefits in terms of improved health outcomes, reduced administrative costs, and a more equitable system would likely outweigh the initial financial burden. The success of other countries demonstrates that universal healthcare is both feasible and beneficial. The real obstacle is not the technical or economic challenges but the political and economic interests of those currently profiting from the existing system.