Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
Universal healthcare, under the Canadian/UK/whatever models usually discussed and suggested, i.e. government-run single-payer, involves people being required to go to the doctor for regular checkups whether they want to or not. It involves them being taxed for the program, limiting their economic liberty. Instead of them choosing what insurance to purchase, what doctors to utilize, etc. those aspects are controlled by whatever entity or agency is set up under the program. All of those are relevant aspects of liberty.
|
Sincere question: have you attempted to purchase insurance or get a healthcare appointment with a specialist for yourself, child, or parent lately and what has that experience been like?
Where I live (high SES town of under 100,000 with two healthcare systems and a lot of private practices), there is a 3-12 month wait to get in to see most specialists, and those are often mid-level providers like nurse practitioners or physician assistants.
The choices for insurance are two state approved carriers that have a handful of coverage packages, the insurance provider your company contracts with and the handful of coverage packages they offer, or state provided Medicare or Medicaid with their standard coverages (if you make below a certain household income, are disabled, or 65 or over).
I work in healthcare and have a healthcare business. I spend a lot of time working with people and thinking about this stuff. Most of the folks that I interact with (providers and patients) do not feel like they have a whole lot of choice or “liberty” with the current system. Providers and patients have zero say in what procedures are approved, how much they are paid, how many visits or time allowed, etc. unless they each have the means to forego the current insurance structure and pay out of pocket.
I also think there is a whole argument to be made that there are ethical dilemmas between the collective good of your community/society and personal liberty. As a healthcare provider or facility, should you be forced to treat someone without the means to pay for treatment services? If you have no insurance or cannot pay up front, and come in with a broken bone or heart attack, can the healthcare provider have the liberty to say, “I don’t want to work for free - sorry.” What if you choose not to insure your child, and cannot afford to pay out of pocket, and they have a seizure or break a bone? Restaurants don’t have to feed people for free and clothing stores don’t have to clothe people for free, so why reset bones and relieve pain for kids for free? There is a pretty good argument that some public services (military, police, firefighters, roadworks, education) already infringe on personal liberties but are clearly a net benefit to societies.