Do We Really Want Medicare for All? Canada and Britain Showcase the Perils of Free Health Care
by Mary West
Candidates for the 2020 democratic presidential nomination are campaigning across the nation, and several of the most prominent ones are calling for Medicare for all. With the high cost of medical expenses, such promises are resonating well with voters. Indeed, the concept of a national health plan has become so popular that 75 percent of Americans support it, according to a 2018 Kaiser Health Tracking poll.
While the prospect of free health care paints a rosy scenario, it has serious drawbacks. Let’s see what we can learn from Canada and Britain, which have both had a national health system in operation for years. An examination of heath care in these countries reveals that Medicare for all is likely to be a bitter pill to swallow.
Before the issues are discussed, it should be noted that the Silver Standard News doesn’t support one political party over another. When the Republicans propose health care solutions, we will endeavor to analyze them honestly.
What Is Medicare for All?
Medicare for all, otherwise called single-payer health care, means that the government is the sole provider. In this system, most private health insurance coverage is not allowed or is restricted. The government takes control over the financing and delivery of medical services, which profoundly affects health care providers (doctors) as well as health care recipients (patients), reports The Heritage Foundation.
An example of a single-payer system in the US is the Veterans Administration, an institution associated with care rations and long waits. It presents a small snapshot of what health care would look like if the system were implemented on a national scale.
Single-Payer Health Care Results in Shortages and Long Waits
Sally Pipes, President of the Pacific Research Institute, is a well-known speaker on health care. She is a contributor to publications such as Forbes and Fortune and has been interviewed by numerous media outlets. Her eye-opening writings and interviews show that if Americans adopt a single-payer health care system, they can expect doctor shortages, less freedom, and long waits for care that can pose a danger.
In an article in Forbes, Pipes points out that lengthy wait periods to receive necessary treatment are the norm in Canada and other single-payer nations, where the governments ration care to reduce costs. “The only thing Canadian patients are ‘guaranteed’ is a spot on a waitlist,” she said. After receiving a referral from a general practitioner to a specialist, the average patient in Canada waits twenty-one weeks to get treatment. In the US, waiting a year for joint replacement surgery is unheard of; in Canada, it’s very common.
How do people fare in Britain, where the National Health Service (NHS) is seventy years old? Like the Canadian health care system, it’s plagued with serious problems. Hospitals are so overcrowded that doctors frequently treat patients in hallways. In a recent winter, 17,000 patients waited in ambulances for as long as an hour or more while space in the emergency room could be cleared for them, reports Pipes. Moreover, because of shortages, the NHS cancelled tens of thousands of surgeries, including critically important cancer procedures.
Another problem inherent in single-payer health care is shortages. “If the price of care is zero, then every patient can demand an infinite amount,” Pipes states in an article in Fortune. To keep medical expenses from skyrocketing, the government imposes strict budgetary caps that result in limitations in hospital staff and equipment. The system also results in lower compensation for doctor’s services, which leads to shortages of health care providers, as current doctors retire earlier and talented people seek professions that are more lucrative.
The long waits and shortages culminate in prolonged suffering and, at times, a threat to life. It’s telling that Americans don’t go abroad for health care, but Canadians and Brits who can afford it come to America for health care. This speaks volumes.
Single-Payer Health Care Devalues the Lives of the Elderly
In an interview on the FOX News show Life, Liberty & Levin, Pipes shares how single-payer health care devalues the lives of the elderly. In Britain, an agency under the NHS makes decisions about providing life-and-death treatment based on priority, which is determined by a monetary value placed on each person according to age. The older people are, the less value is placed on their lives, and they only get treatment if their lives are deemed greater in value than the treatment cost.
For example, if the monetary value of a 50-year-old is $200,000, and a cancer drug costs $100,000, the person gets the drug. Conversely, if the monetary value of a 65-year-old is $50,000, the person is denied the drug. “The quality adjusted value of your life is not worth the cost of taking care of you and providing that coverage,” Pipes explains. In other words, the older and sicker people are, the less likely they will be to get the treatment they need. This system is dehumanizing.
Single-Payer Health Care Is Costly
If health care is free for consumers, it begs the question, “Who is going to pay for it?” Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act would increase the national debt by $32 trillion over the decade, resulting in a $170 trillion debt hike over thirty years, reports the Daily Beast. Some experts say the tax increases needed to finance the program would be impoverishing. While the national cost of health care would soar, the quality would plummet.
What Are Some Alternatives and Solutions to Consider?
Finding solutions to single-payer health care will undoubtedly be challenging. In brainstorming ways of improving our current system, Pipes makes the following suggestions:
- A wider use of Health Savings Accounts should be considered. They work like pensions because they involve putting money away every month to use on medical expenses. Contributions to these accounts are eligible for tax deductions.
- Frivolous or unjustified medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up the cost of health care. “Doctors do practice defensive medicine because they’re afraid of being sued,” Pipes notes. Limits need to be placed on monetary damages the courts award.
- Greater competition among insurance companies would help bring prices down. This could be fostered by eliminating mandates, which would permit consumers to get a health care plan tailored to their individual needs. To illustrate, men could buy a plan that excludes gynecological care, and women could choose a plan that excludes prostate surgery.
- Pipes says that 6 or 7 million people, a relatively small percentage of the populace, have preexisting conditions. This pool of people needs to be cared for, but it can be done without dismantling the entire system.
America’s health care is far from perfect, yet it’s far superior to the medical care offered in countries that have a single-payer system. Any efforts to improve it should exclude methods that have proven to have devastating consequences such as restricted access to and reduced quality of care.