American Socialism - Healthcare

Today’s Wall Street Journal shared the humorous story of Nebraska’s experience with its new “safe haven” law. A safe haven law states that parents can give their child to a hospital if they believe that they will not be able to care for the child. Many states have had such laws for many years, stipulating that within so many days of the child’s birth, the parents may return it to the hospital. Nebraska’s safe haven law failed to stipulate any sort of age ceiling, and of a consequence, the law was invoked for a number of children, mostly teenagers, but not a single infant. The Nebraska government was obliged to retool their legislation.

Yes, it is a sad story because it reflects the sorry state of the family in our society, the extreme difficulties presented by some children, and the incapacity of parents. But it is also a funny story because the intent of a new law was entirely without effect. And it is also a horrific story because it shows what the government is permitted to do, despite its own ineptitude: to wit, the government regulated that certain private businesses must provide new services to the public, outside of their expertise, beyond their ability, and at their own expense.

This is just a glimpse of socialism at work in the US. It isn’t strictly socialism because the government has not been actually holding the reins in the healthcare industry, but it has been building the fences that keep the industry corralled for years. In the coming months, we face the possibility of having the country’s entire healthcare industry nationalized, and we had better give some thought to what that would mean.

First of all, it would not mean a complete change of management. The government already exercises great control on the industry, as the previous paragraph describes. The government is moreover considering requiring all employers to provide employees with healthcare plans. Nationalization in this case would mean dissolving the partnership between government and private business holders, only to the exclusion of the latter.

Second, it would mean the elimination of competition, not all competition, of course, since US citizens should still have the opportunity of going to other countries for medical care. Already Americans sometimes visit foreign nations for cosmetic surgeries. Nevertheless, looking at how the last big government-run businesses, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, faced the task of staying economically sound, this writer avers that competition is our life preserver.

Third, it would mean a healthcare plan for everyone who cannot afford their own. “Great!” says a segment of the population. “Socialized healthcare means free healthcare, and healthcare costs are too high as it is.” Costs certainly are high, and the US healthcare industry is approaching a crisis, but how myopic not to suppose that the great leap into socialism could be the endpoint crisis. In addition to considering the last two paragraphs, reflect that a promise of free healthcare is only going to be fulfilled in the provision of a free healthcare plan. Anyone who has had to go through a PCP to see a specialist has an idea of the difference between the two; a friend of mine had to go through three physicians, paying each for a visit, before getting treatment for a problem that he accurately self-diagnosed.

The healthcare industry knows that it’s in trouble. One of the healthcare giants out here responded by getting a grant from the taxpayers for itself placed on the last ballot; voters (not synonymous with taxpayers) approved the bill. The other healthcare giant here is researching cost-effective healthcare provision in foreign countries in order to implement their better business models. The first example shows a provider being floated by the government (see also: socialism/communism). The second shows a corporation working to become economically viable (see also: competition). Under a nationalized healthcare system, we don’t get to pick which one we patronize.