|  | Healthcare Industry | Health Insurance

Cons of the Universal Health Care Debate

Universal health care is an important part of a plan for health care reform that seeks to make care more affordable and provide coverage to all Americans. It's difficult to argue against health care for all Americans. Because of the costs involved, however, the issue isn't cut-and-dry. The magnitude of the expenditure carries inherent risks that are being discussed as important cons in the universal health care debate.

  1. Higher Taxes or Spending Cuts

    • The money to pay for universal health care benefits would come from new taxes or savings from spending cuts, at least initially. Universal health care would pay for itself over time by ridding the system of inefficiencies and reducing the costs of services and delivery. Until that happens, however, there'll be tough choices to make between universal health care and education, security or some other vital function of government. Those compromises could result in the U.S. trading one problem for another.

    Creation of a Nanny State

    • The Christian Science Monitor points to Japan as one example of a "nanny state" in which government restricts freedom by restricting behaviors."The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs," the Monitor says. Such regulation includes requiring the overweight to attend diet counseling. The United Kingdom is clamping down by banning advertisements for eggs that it says promote unhealthy lifestyles. The U.S. has made moves in that direction, the article notes, in the actions taken by some state and local governments to tax junk food or ban certain food ingredients, like trans-fats, from restaurants. Universal health care could, it's feared, instigate a surge of new legislation that restricts personal freedom.

    Disincentive for Responsible Consumption

    • Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute predicts that, "When a person can consume medical services without needing to consider how to pay for them ... the $2,000 elective liver test he or she would have forgone in favor of a better place to live suddenly becomes a necessity when its cost seems to add up to $0." ProCon.org takes this concern a step further with its "moral-hazard" argument that free care is a disincentive for people to behavior responsibly and safely because they know that regardless or their habits, they'll receive whatever treatment they need. The resulting increase in demand for medical services could increase costs over time and encourage new regulations that would make providers more accountable. Providers, Ghate notes, could be crushed under the strain.

    Rationing

    • The argument that free health care could lead to the rationing of medical services is a compelling one. Resources are finite so it's not possible for every American to get every medical service she needs when it is appropriate. This raises the possibility that care could be rationed according to government leaders' biases about a patient's political beliefs, habits, behaviors or even age, rather than medical considerations, as cited by BalancedPolitics.org. Family Doctor magazine notes that in Canada and parts of Western Europe, rationing of care exists because services are in such demand that patients have to wait for care. This is true not only for elective procedures, like knee replacements, but also for potentially life-saving ones like cardiac catheterizations and cancer treatment.

Health Insurance - Related Articles