The Conservative Case for Universal Health Care

American Thinker ^ | Dec. 12, 2007 | Randall Hoven

[ChurtleDawg]

I am a small-government conservative/libertarian and have hated the concept of socialized medicine almost all my life. But now, I could live with universal health coverage in the U.S.. Here's why.

We now have the worst of both worlds: we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage. Then we pay more than that amount again in private coverage. Additionally, what we have now in the U.S. is nowhere near a free market in health care. Defending the status quo is not defending a free market. And if socialized medicine is your fear, we already have it.

I've heard no one, on either side of the political spectrum, play up the fact that the government in the U.S. already spends more on health care than almost every other country on earth. I'm talking government spending, not private spending. According to the U.S. Statistical Abstract, government spending on health care in the U.S was $2,168 per person in 2001 (the last year for which comparison data are available). Here were the top 10 government spenders on health care in 2001.

[Slapshot68]

You know who was a big proponent of UHC?

Nixon.

[weegee]

Universal Health Care will not tolerate competition. Politicians call it a two tier system if you can privately pay (inside the US) for medical care.

[RC2]

Insurance companies are what’s breaking our health programs down. When a family of four has to pay $1500.00 a month for health insurance, it’s a rip off. It shouldn’t cost anyone more than $500.00 for insurance. Very few of the younger set even spend that kind of money on health problems. Most of the money is spent by those over 70 years old and that’s just because of what age does to you. The insurance companies just bank that money and blame the lawyers for everything. Control the insurance companies and the lawyers and the problem is solved.

[fweingart]

There is NO conservative argument FOR government health care.

[goldstategop]

Its funny to see libertarians surrender to Big Government with a whimper.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[ChurtleDawg]

Nixon also created the EPA and wanted to cut the defense budget

[Jeffrey_D.]

Gee I don’t know.......maybe that’s because the government run Medicaid and Medicare are typically of any government run bureaucracy????

[Antoninus]

Universal healthcare. Providing the worst to the most for the greatest expense.

[Nathan Zachary]

"we are paying for universal health coverage, but not getting it. In fact, we pay more for health care in taxes than countries that provide universal coverage."

Oh no we aren't. You just haven't a clue how muchmore it would cost. see that paycheck? Now cut a full 1/3 off. That's how much you would pay in taxes for health care. (based on a salary of 60k/yr) Add your 23-27% for regular taxes after that. In other words, kiss half your paycheck goodbye before you even get it. More if you make more.

[RightWhale]

It’s not health care. It’s health care insurance.

[Nathan Zachary]

Oh, and that “universal health care” doesn’t include dental care, crutches, drugs, wheelchairs, braces etc.

[wbill]

The arguments, I think, are logical.

I would however, point out that it is far better to have health care that is expensive but *available*, than cheap health care that is completely unavailable (or has ridiculous wait times, amounting to the same thing).

When you get right down to it, if my kid needs an expensive operation, I'll find a way to pay for it. Not so if the hospital system has fulfilled its quota of heart transplants for the year and makes me wait until 2010.

[JayAr36]

And who would administer this UHC. The government! What the hell have they ever done right?

[Antoninus]

Insurance companies are what’s breaking our health programs down. When a family of four has to pay $1500.00 a month for health insurance, it’s a rip off.

Uh, that's only the case in states where the insurance companies are not allowed to offer catastrophic-only health plans. New Jersey is just such a state. Comparing the minimum of $1,200/month that people pay for coverage in NJ with minimums in other states which can over around $200/month, it should be obvious to anyone with a brain what the problem is.

My theory is that Democrat-controlled states like NJ, MA, and CA have purposely driven up the cost of health insurance to make the people *scream* for a solution. And the only solution the left ever offers is a government solution.

Anyone calling themselves a proponent of "universal health care" is not a conservative.

[traditional1]

Health Care is not a "right"; it's a matter of personal choice and responsibility.

Those who benefit from government interference with personal choice in ANYTHING are those who don't pay their own way and want OTHERS to fund their lifestyles, period.

[ChurtleDawg]

I know there is a difference between socialized health care and a national, single payer health insurance system.

[tacticalogic]

It’s not health care. It’s health care insurance.

As long as they don't try to tell me it's "regulating commerce".

[GovernmentShrinker]

This guy’s got a major circular thinking problem. The REASON we’re spending so much money (both via taxes and private payments) is BECAUSE of the the massive degree of socialized medicine already built into our system. There is zero financial incentive to most people to 1) run their lives in a way that minimizes their need for medical care, and 2) shop around for good value when they do need medical care.

[scan59]

Universal healthcare. Providing the worst to the most for the greatest expense.

Bingo! And then there's the rationing that's bound to come based on life expectency.