Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Editor
Author:  Bob Webster
Bio: Bob Webster
Date:  July 10, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

National Health Care = Lower Health Care Standards

As the old saying goes, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" -- and that is certainly true for national health care systems.

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama supports the Canadian-style "single payer" system for national health care in the United States. That system is not voluntary, it is mandatory. The Canadian system, like government health care systems in general, is vastly inferior to the current free-market system in the United States. Yes, it appears to be less expensive to the patient. Some might even call it "free," but we all know that it is not free in any sense of the word. There are really only two ways in which government health care systems differ from free market-based systems: (1) the services are paid for differently but ultimately by the people, and, (2) government paid institutional systems are far inferior to market-based systems.

It has been suggested (and with good reason) that the greatest opponents of a US national health care system are Canadiens because they will then have no place to go to receive timely, quality health care!

What are the most important aspects of health care? First, care must be timely. If the finest care could be provided by a national system, but it was necessary to wait many months to receive treatment, many patients would either die or suffer needlessly before receiving treatment. Private systems are always available and, if one service is too busy to provide prompt attention, there are always other alternatives for obtaining treatment. Such freedom of choice is banished from government health care systems, and the only recourse is to leave the country in the hopes of finding some place where timely quality care can be received. Few can afford that luxury.

The second major advantage of private health care is that it is competitive in nature. The best care will yield the best reputation for services and will attract better staff and more patients. Costs often reflect reputation and competence, but even the lowest cost services in a free market system provide a high standard of care. Waiting times are vastly superior in a market-based system than with non-competitive national health care systems.

It would be fair to state that in many, many cases, health care delayed is health care denied.

Consider these recent news stories from the United Kingdom. The first was seen in the Minehead News-Trader (north Somerset coast):

There are a few observations from this report. First, it took ten years to reduce waiting times to below 18 weeks (that's four months). Second, 10% of patients requiring a hospital stay and 5% of patients not requiring hospitalization are still not being seen within 18 weeks.

Then there is this report seen June 1, 2008 in The Sunday Telegraph:

There is much more in the article, but you get the gist of it from the above. One interesting sidebar included a link to a poll question, "Will the 18-week target improve the NHS?"

Nothing could highlight the dangers of a national health system than the experiences of those who are forced to live with one.

You've been forewarned. National health care systems do not work! It is a pipe-dream to think otherwise and simply denies reality. It may make a vote-getting campaign position, but at what cost to the nation's health?

The notion that bureaucrats in the US could get it any better than Canadians or British is a delusion.

There is simply no rationale for scrapping the best health care system on the planet in order to "help" a small minority of patients who cannot afford their care. Most states have aggressive programs to provide charity care through the existing system. In the cases where there is a true need it would be far better to consider a welfare program to provide such care for the needy without destroying everyone else's system.

Demand common sense from those who seek your vote in November. Don't be played for a fool.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster


Biography - Bob Webster

Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father and early American patriot, Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student so they can understand the dangers of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.


Read other commentaries by Bob Webster.

Visit Bob Webster's website at WEBCommentary

Copyright 2008 by Bob Webster
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2017 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved