The diagnosis is clear: the healthcare system in the United States is in terrible shape. Of the 301 million society living in the country, 47 million, or 16 percent of the population, do not have health insurance. Out of those 47 million 8.7 million are children (“Health Insurance Coverage”). At the same instance, health insurance premiums and the cost of prescription drugs are increasing while the quality of care seems to be declining.

Some citizens will point to these rising costs and say that greedy drug companies cause them. that, however, is far from the truth. The real reason for the rising costs is government intervention into the healthcare market.

The rising cost of pharmaceuticals, for instance, can be traced to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA forces companies to put their drugs through multiple years worth of research and evaluating. They additionally charge the companies huge fees to allow the drugs into the marketplace. These fees do not allow for smaller startup companies to compete with the larger, established companies.

The government additionally makes the healthcare situation worse by passing laws that have good intentions, but fail miserably. One specific example of that can be seen in the 1974 ERISA law. that law grants tax benefits to employers who supply healthcare to their employees. On the surface, that seems like a good concept. Give the employers an incentive and they will cover their employees, but it has had adverse consequences. Since that law was passed, less and less individuals have decided to cover themselves. So now, instead of catering to the individual, health insurance companies cater to the needs of big businesses. Thus, as wealthy corporations have pumped more money into the healthcare system the prices have artificially risen out of the range of most individuals (Paul).

It seems clear that the current level of government intervention into the U.S. healthcare market is not working for the average healthcare consumer. There is no doubt that a major change in the system needs to occur in order to solve the crisis. Some society will claim that more government intervention, via Universal Healthcare or Socialized Medicine, will be the cure. The United States is, after all, the only developed nation that does not have a design of government funded health insurance available to all individuals. These plans give the government even more control and potential by the healthcare system.

In Great Britain they have a scheme of Socialized Medicine known as the National Health Services (NHS), which is the world’s largest publicly funded health service provider. They claim that the health services are free when it is clear that someone has to pay the doctor’s and hospitals. Proponents of Socialized Medicine will tell you that the government pays for it, but where does the government get the money? It comes from the taxpayer, to the tune of 78.5 billion dollars per year and that money is forcibly taken from every individual in the country.

Let’s look at it that way. assume my grandmother was dying from a treatable style of cancer, but she was too poor to be able to pay for the chemotherapy. She lacks health insurance and no one in my family has the money to pay for the treatment. Would it soon after be permissible for me to steal money from someone else in order to fund her treatment? What whether I had fifteen other citizens with me? Or 100? Or 20,000? Of course it would never be appropriate for me to steal to get her treated, even with a gang of 20,000 supporters, but that is what the government does in the case of Socialized Medicine. They take from every individual, even the healthy ones, to pay the medical bills of those that are sick.

Not only is the organization funded through theft, but they can plus refuse to treat any individual that they choose. Take the case of John Nuttall as a stark example. Two years ago Mr. Nuttall broke his ankle in three places, but it had not healed properly with a plaster cast. He now lives in fixed pain from the feeling of his bones rubbing together. The pain is so excruciating that the doctors have prescribed him a daily dose of the strong painkiller morphine. Nonetheless, NHS doctors refuse to function on his ankle to fix the problem. Why? considering he is a smoker and he is unable to kick the habit. Nuttall makes a great point about the absurdity of their denial, “I want to warn other smokers that they could be denied medical treatment and there is nothing we can do about it. I have paid my dues as a taxpayer and now the NHS won’t treat me” (Brooke, “Hospitals”).

Since more government regulation and intervention makes the healthcare situation worse, there is only one solution left to consider: deregulation of the healthcare market. that is the only to decrease the price of healthcare, increase innovations in the healthcare market, and improve the quality of care, solving the healthcare crisis.

A Right to Food

Food is a basic substance that every human being needs to outlive. Since such is the case, thereupon does it not seem logical that all human beings have the right to food? As a conclusion of that right, public without suitable money to pay for their food should be allowed to enter a supermarket and take whatever they need to outlive at the expense of everyone else. And, since food is such an crucial product to sustaining human life, thereupon, in a free market system, consumers are at the mercy of the greedy food producers who could artificially raise prices to whatever obscene amount they pleased. At the same date, public in higher income brackets are able to afford better quality food than those in the lower income brackets, creating a two-tier food market.

So what is the solution to that horrific problem in the food market? Well, it seems obvious that everyone should have equal access to food via government funded grocery insurance. That way anyone could walk into a grocery store and pick up whatever food they wanted. Soon shopping habits would change and most society would walk past the ground beef and head straight for the prime rib, not worrying about the cost. The two-tier food system would be eliminated, and everyone would be equal.

Of course, that scenario is not the reality of the current food situation in the United States. Food, like most consumers goods, is provided by a free market system. Prices are actually in the range of most individuals considering there is competition in the marketplace. that competition leads to quality food and low, competitive prices that benefit every individual. that is considering the food market actually operates under economic principles with little government intervention.

According to the basic economic principle of supply and demand there are only two ways for a product or service to become cheaper in the market place. One of those ways is whether the demand for that product or service decreases. Since the population of the world is constantly increasing, that seems very unlikely to occur in the case of healthcare. The other way for prices to decrease is whether the production of the product or service increases. that means that the only economically feasible way to decrease prices in the healthcare market is to increase the supply of doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, and prescription drugs.

Herein lies one major fault of Universal Healthcare. Proponents of such plans assume that the current supply of doctors and other vital medical supplies and facilities is a fixed number and they only aim to redistribute these products in a manner that they deem to be more just. In other words, they are not striving to increase the supply to invent healthcare services more affordable for every individual. Instead, they are taking healthcare services from some folks and giving them to others. How fair is that?

Looking back at the fictitious example of government-funded grocery insurance reveals how to form healthcare costs decrease. Current government interventions into the healthcare market through arbitrary licensing of doctors, hospitals, prescription drugs, and other medical goods actually cause the supply of these goods to decrease. that decrease causes the prices of the products to artificially inflate out of the reach of many individuals. Just suppose whether every grocery receptionist, stock boy, grocery store, and store manager had to be licensed by the government. that would undoubtedly cause the price of food to skyrocket. Loosening, or even abolishing, the restrictions in the medical field would allow more competition into the marketplace. that would cause the prices of healthcare services to dramatically decline. whether we can allow such an crucial product as food to be offered without such arbitrary licensing, next why not allow healthcare to do the same?

The Market Leads to Innovations

Under a free market healthcare system more innovation would occur than a situation with high levels of government control. that is considering governments do not have the same incentives as individuals to invest in new technologies or try new approaches to healthcare.

In countries that have Socialized medicine, for instance, we typically see fewer innovations in medical technology, main to a decrease in the supply of these crucial medical tools. In these systems the healthcare budgets are generally very tight, and bureaucrats and politicians often see investing in new technology as too costly and risky. Take the Socialized system in Canada as an example. A study by the Fraser Institute has found that among the countries that produce up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks fifth in terms of total amount of healthcare spending. Yet, at the same date, they rank 21st out of 28 in CT scanner availability, 19th out of 22 in lithotriptor availability, and 19th out of 27 in the availability of MRIs (Matthews 41). that shortage in accessibility is a huge problem in Canada.

Take, for instance, the case of a hospital in Guelph, Ontario that has decided to confess animals for CT scans. They are motivated by profit, charging the pet’s owners $300 per visit for access to the machines. At the same date, public like Greg Moulton, who was suffering from

excruciating headaches, were on a two-month waiting list to use the same machine. In Canada, however, it is illegal for an individual to pay out of his or her own pocket for medical expenses covered under the government-controlled plan — that would be unfair after all — so he had to wait. A dog, however, could use the same medical technology immediately (Matthews 41).

This situation has essentially put the value of the life of a human being lower than that of a dog, or any other animal for that matter. The problem is that the doctors are forced, by law, to only supply an MRI at the scheduled times for the citizens on the waiting lists. A person cannot go in unscheduled to get the procedure done, but an animal can. that is an egregious violation of the basic human right to life, and it has been perpetrated by the government of Canada.

Not only does the free market allow for improvements in technologies, but it additionally breeds innovation in the way that healthcare is distributed. One example of that can been seen in the view of “boutique” medicine that has been appearing in the United States. In that healthcare model, patients agree to pay primary-care physicians an annual fee. In return, these doctors agree to be available on a 24/7 basis, while limiting the number of patients they will have. The fee can plus cover other expenses such as medication, diagnostic evaluating, and exams, along with the guaranteed easy access (Bailey).

Another one of these innovations can be seen in the view of SimpleCare, which is plus fitting popular in the United States. In that program, patients agree to pay doctors in full on the spot. that drastically cuts out paperwork that would normally be needed to send to insurance companies, or government agencies in the case of Universal Healthcare. that reduction of paperwork allows the doctors to cut spending by not needing to hire as many secretaries or other individuals to handle the paperwork. that process has allowed the doctors to cut their prices by 30 to 50 percent (Bailey). These organizations would likely be illegal whether there were more government control in the healthcare market.

Innovations are already occurring in the United States where there is restricted free market in healthcare. In places like the United Kingdom and Canada, where there is more government control of the industry, many of these innovations are less likely to occur. In fact, in most countries with a typical national healthcare plan, many of these advancements would actually be illegal. It is crucial to note, however, that the United States is not a total free market. Only when the market is allowed to function without restrictions, such as those from the FDA and the ERISA law, will we see true innovation in healthcare.

Quality of Care

Let’s, once again, look at the case of government-run grocery insurance. Under that program, most public would be taking the more expensive food items, like prime rib and lobster, instead of ground beef and canned tuna. that would cause an artificial demand for those products, which would inevitably lead to a shortage due to an inability to keep up production. that shortage would lead to enlarged waiting lines for those expensive and rare foods.

Imagine planning a large dinner party, that is going to take place in one week, but the waiting duration for one of the menu items is nearly thirty weeks. What recourse could be taken to obtain that food? The black market could be looked at, but that can always be dangerous and it can never be known whether or not you are getting what you asked for. A more logical solution might be paying a visit to a neighboring country that does not have government-funded grocery insurance to purchase the food, at full price, in a free market environment.

Why is it that society from all by the world come to the United States when they need major medical operations? The above scenario answers that question fairly clearly. In countries that have one structure of Socialized Medicine or another there are often towering waiting lines for treatment. In Great Britain, for example, 900,000 public are waiting for admission to government run hospitals at any given day. In Sweden, there is a twenty-five week waiting period for heart surgery, and a one-year waiting list for hip replacement surgery. Twenty-five weeks is a expanded instance to wait for a heart, and whether someone on that list has suitable money to pay for the surgery on their own, next they are likely to come to the United States, the only developed nation with a semblance of free market medicine, to get the procedure done (Cannon). Otherwise, they might just die waiting.

In Canada, a country whose Socialized Healthcare system is often propped up on a pedestal by American politicians, there are plus lengthy waiting lines to get treatment. Access to new technologies is plus restricted, and sometimes folks are rejected treatment altogether (Matthews 35). These problems, particularly the lack of new technologies, have driven Canadians across the border to gain access to the healthcare system of the United States. As the New York Times points out, “Canada has moved informally to a two-tier, public-private system. Although private practice is limited to dentists and veterinarians, 90 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the United States, and many folks are crossing the border for private care” (Brooke, “Hospitals”). Many Canadians are choosing to cross the border and pay for treatment instead of waiting for admission into the government-funded hospitals.

If the healthcare system in the United States were allowed to function under a true free market, next the quality of care would increase even more. Without restrictions from the FDA that drive the cost of developing new medications to $800 million, smaller companies would be able to compete with the larger companies. that would allow more, potentially life saving, medications to be produced. More medical technologies would plus be developed allowing for better care for the consumer. Even family practices could work with a far better outcome in a free-market system.

Take, for instance, the case of James W. Brook, a practicing family physician in Idaho Falls, Idaho. He has decided to only accept cash in his practice, thus eliminating the paperwork needed to deal with insurance companies and the government, through Medicare and Medicaid. By doing so, he was able to reduce his average charge to $37 per patient. That fee plus included some antibiotics, lab fees, medications, and house calls (Brook).

This has saved his patients a great deal of money, while plus increasing the quality of their care. According to Brook, “I calculated that whether I charge $30 for something now, in order to come out the same, I would need to charge $107 whether I had the same financial constraints as most doctors. I would have an additional $34 in overhead per patient, raising the fee to $64. soon after to gather that $64, I would have to charge $107” (Brook). At the same day, he offers same-day services, flexible hours, and substantial day with his patients, all of which are in stark contrast to the waiting lines, strict hours, and rushed care that is present in Socialized Medicine.

The Walter Reed Tragedy

The way the political winds are blowing seems to indicate that the United States is, in fact, headed for some sort of Universal Healthcare. Both Democratic candidates for president want some type of national health plan and even the major Republican candidate has proposals that will increase government involvement in the healthcare industry.

The government of the United States, however, has a not good track record when it comes to implementing types of Socialized Medicine. Take, for instance, the case of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), located in Washington, D.C. The United States gives military personnel free health coverage and the center is one of the places where they can get the care. An composition in the Washington Post has recently been published exposing the hospital for keeping its patients in terrible conditions. One of the buildings that are part of the WRAMC has been described as being infested with cockroaches and rats. Reports from some of the soldiers there have described cases of black mold, stained carpets, cheap mattresses, and living conditions with no heat or water.

In addition, the level of bureaucracy at the hospital is absolutely atrocious. More than twenty documents are due for a soldier to access to the hospital. Sixteen different data systems are called for to process the knowledge, but few of them are actually capable of communicating with each other. The army does have personnel databases, three of them in fact, but they are not able to communicate with each other, or interface with the hospital’s record keeping databases. These problems have led to soldiers needing to prove they were in a war in order to even gain access to the facility, considering employees are often unable to locate the records (Hull).

If the United States government is not even able to take care of the veterans that fought in their name, soon after how could they ever supply healthcare for the entire nation? The reply is simple: they cannot, and any attempt will surely fail. The United States government needs to deregulate the healthcare market and allow individuals to be responsible for the decisions they construct in the healthcare market. Only soon after will the healthcare crisis be solved.

Original post by psreddy

expectorant anodyne indigestion diuretic anthelmintic abscesses water purifier vertigo head lice joint pain dermatitis ganglion fragile hair cellulite normal skin endometriosis oily skin mumps cerebral palsy edema pneumonia insect bites antidepressant anticoagulant air purifier slipped disc allergies blepharitis wrinkles tick repellent heavy menstruation antiinfectious noise pollution cuts oily hair febrifuge analgesic scrapes sea sickness hot flashes hay fever appetite stimulant estrogen-like cracked skin amenorrhea pelvic inflammation gout increases blood pressure abrasions migraines