Here are three thoughts that came up in a debate over healthcare on Facebook. My interlocutor was concerned about the fact that European countries might have more universal healthcare systems, but they also had much higher rates of income tax, and so introducing a similar health care system here would result in similarly high income tax rates, seemd to be the argument. Partly because of this he wanted to go slow in implementing change. There is only an indirect link betwen high income tax rates and universal health care in many of the countries cited, because many of those countries have systems based on PRIVATE insurance and PRIVATE medical systems, but, regardless, here are my three cobbled-together thoughts:
First, forget about the income tax rate, concentrate instead on how much the health care sector costs us, the American people as a society. The cost is roughly TWICE that of what Europeans have to pay, as a proportion of their GDP, yet Europeans have the same or a better standard of health care than what Americans receive. Talk about inefficient! It is not so much what happens to our tax dollars, as what happens to our health care dollars, public--and even more to the point--private. it is like having an 18% tax on everything we do, when the Europeans get away with less than 10% for the same service.
Second, if you look at the proposed legislation there are ALREADY long delays and a lengthy time frame for the implementation of the changes, which are, compared to single-payer or the like, actually quite conservative. This "we need more time" is just a way to delay and frustrate those who want to bring some real, positive change to US health care.
Third thought: guaranteeing universal health care provision should not be seen as a way of limiting individual freedom, as is implied by those stressing the impact on income taxes. Instead, in a country such as Britain or Canada, with "socialized medicine", individuals are free to move from job to job without constantly having to worry about whether their health insurance will end with their leaving one employer, or whether it will be adversely affected due to their new employer's policy. There is none of this neo-feudal relationship, with individual dependency on the boss, because health care is guaranteed regardless of your employer. Isn't that sort of freedom and labor mobility what a freedom loving country such as the USA should want?
Comments are closed for this post.
