Nationalized Health Care Is a Bad Idea

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

2045

Abstract

ng entity for protecting human rights and dealing with matters that individual states couldn’t, such as foreign policy.</p><p id="01ee">Though the government has grown significantly since the 18th century, this health care proposal would certainly be one of the single most expansive advances of governmental authority in our history. Is that really something we as Americans should ask for? And, with only about <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/">17% of Americans expressing trust in the government</a>, are there really people asking for this?</p><p id="9ead">If the government were to expand its power and influence enough to be able to manage a universal health care system it would also become powerful and influential enough to start messing with other parts of private life.</p><p id="9bfa">This is my second issue with the proposal: “<i>A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have</i>,” quoth Someone Important.</p><p id="7521">My third issue is in a similar vein to the last; why should the government decide for the people what type of health care they get? A universal health care system would remove people’s right to make choices about their own life by saying that the government knows best, and the result would likely be poorer quality healthcare for individuals because it’s designed for the average (once again, look at Canada).</p><p id="7888">All this isn’t even to mention that the entirety of Sanders’ Socialist agenda would <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/bernie-sanders-expensive-spending-proposals">cost about $100 trillion over the next decade</a> and that he so far has shown no plan to raise that much money.</p><p id="4d9c">So, if nationalized health care isn’t the solution, then what is? There’s an economic term, “dynamic comparative advantage,” that describes government manipulation of the economic playing field until smaller industries that wouldn’t be able to succeed on t

Options

heir own become competitive in the free market. This could work for health care as well.</p><p id="4bf8">If the government supported an expansion of small, private health care insurers and providers and limited mergers between health care corporations, people would have more, cheaper options to choose from which would make these businesses grow until they could compete with the larger, established businesses, thus bringing down prices overall until government support is no longer needed. Essentially, this proposal is government regulation of monopolies.</p><p id="ab02">In conclusion, a federally controlled universal health care plan would provide low-quality service as there would be no competition with it, would eliminate people’s right to choose how their health is taken care of, and would expand governmental power to dangerous heights.</p><p id="b473">It would replace the monopolies that resulted from a Capitalist approach to health care with an even more dangerous Socialist monopoly.</p><p id="7c3c">What is necessary is to combat the monopolies in the health industry by injecting it with government-supported businesses, thus increasing freedom and choice, lowering prices, and creating jobs. Also, market stimulation seems to usually have bipartisan support; another point to this proposal.</p><p id="5a1f">For an expansion of my proposal, check out this essay:</p><div id="b2c4" class="link-block"> <a href="https://readmedium.com/what-america-can-learn-from-the-swiss-health-care-system-26a4a5f7be77"> <div> <div> <h2>What America Should Learn From the Swiss Health Care System</h2> <div><h3>An alternative to nationalized health care.</h3></div> <div><p>medium.com</p></div> </div> <div> <div style="background-image: url(https://miro.readmedium.com/v2/resize:fit:320/1*pUKyxqAcBewrtvacVCh5YQ.jpeg)"></div> </div> </div> </a> </div></article></body>

The Solution to a Capitalist Monopoly Is Not a Socialist Monopoly

There is a problem with the health care system in the US, specifically with how much it costs, which seems to be the result of growing monopolies in multiple areas of the industry. I think everyone can agree on that; what we can’t all agree on is how to go about solving this problem.

To start, I would like to provide a counter-argument to those who believe federally provided universal health care is the answer, and then I will propose a different solution.

In a system like what 2020 Democratic candidates Sanders and Warren have espoused, the federal government would be in control of the type of care they provide, who they provide it too, the doctors they hire, the amount they pay workers, the taxes they charge to pay for the system, and just about every other aspect of both a government agency and the entire health care industry.

My first issue with this scenario is that the government doesn’t have the resources or, quite frankly, aptitude to manage a system this large and complex (look at Canada where patients wait an average of 21 weeks for treatment), nor should it.

The American government was initially designed to be a small, supervising entity for protecting human rights and dealing with matters that individual states couldn’t, such as foreign policy.

Though the government has grown significantly since the 18th century, this health care proposal would certainly be one of the single most expansive advances of governmental authority in our history. Is that really something we as Americans should ask for? And, with only about 17% of Americans expressing trust in the government, are there really people asking for this?

If the government were to expand its power and influence enough to be able to manage a universal health care system it would also become powerful and influential enough to start messing with other parts of private life.

This is my second issue with the proposal: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have,” quoth Someone Important.

My third issue is in a similar vein to the last; why should the government decide for the people what type of health care they get? A universal health care system would remove people’s right to make choices about their own life by saying that the government knows best, and the result would likely be poorer quality healthcare for individuals because it’s designed for the average (once again, look at Canada).

All this isn’t even to mention that the entirety of Sanders’ Socialist agenda would cost about $100 trillion over the next decade and that he so far has shown no plan to raise that much money.

So, if nationalized health care isn’t the solution, then what is? There’s an economic term, “dynamic comparative advantage,” that describes government manipulation of the economic playing field until smaller industries that wouldn’t be able to succeed on their own become competitive in the free market. This could work for health care as well.

If the government supported an expansion of small, private health care insurers and providers and limited mergers between health care corporations, people would have more, cheaper options to choose from which would make these businesses grow until they could compete with the larger, established businesses, thus bringing down prices overall until government support is no longer needed. Essentially, this proposal is government regulation of monopolies.

In conclusion, a federally controlled universal health care plan would provide low-quality service as there would be no competition with it, would eliminate people’s right to choose how their health is taken care of, and would expand governmental power to dangerous heights.

It would replace the monopolies that resulted from a Capitalist approach to health care with an even more dangerous Socialist monopoly.

What is necessary is to combat the monopolies in the health industry by injecting it with government-supported businesses, thus increasing freedom and choice, lowering prices, and creating jobs. Also, market stimulation seems to usually have bipartisan support; another point to this proposal.

For an expansion of my proposal, check out this essay: