


When it comes to the 2008 presidential election, both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton have one common socialist goal: universal health care. The Democrats want to reform health care to the point of socialized medicine.
Universal health care is bad and un-American.
How many students on campus appreciate the fact they’re required to enroll with the Student Health Insurance Plan unless they have alternate coverage? Let’s consider a hypothetical situation. Imagine the university forcing us to enroll in SHIP regardless of whether or not we already have coverage. In the process of forcing every student to enroll in SHIP, it became free, causing the cost of tuition to jump 30 percent.
Take that one step farther and mandate all students must seek medical treatment at the Health and Wellness Center. Nearly 20,000 students seek treatment at the small building on the corner of University Avenue and Joyce Street. This is a universal health care system.
As a free-market capitalist, I understand the need for health care, and I understand the frustration some Americans have with our current health care system. The problem with universal health care is not the care itself, but the people who receive care without paying for it. Some people argue health insurance is too expensive and inhibits Americans from obtaining proper coverage. I argue those freeloaders need to develop strong priorities to start insuring themselves.
According to a study found on the Depository Services Program Website, America looks to Canada to model its health care system based on a number of fiscal statistics. For example, Canada’s current healthcare percentage gross national product is nine percent – that is much lower than the United States’ 15 percent. Also the infant mortality rate in Canada is 7.9 per 1,000 births, compated to the United States’ 10.5 per 1,000. When looking at these statistics, Canada seems to have health care under control, but this can be misleading.
While Canada’s health care system appears to run more fiscally efficient, other factors must be taken into account. Rationing is prominent in socialized medicine. Rationing is what will occur if every student has to receive treatment at the Health and Wellness Center. Long lines, waiting lists and understaffed hospitals are outcomes we can expect under a universal health care system.
There have been court cases that addressed the issue of rationing and waiting lists that exist in the countries with socialized medicine. In Chaoulli v. Québec, the Canadian Supreme Court found that the Health Insurance Act and Hospital Insurance Act, which outlaws privatized health insurance, violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the Canadian Bill of Rights in their constitution.
Waiting lists can be anywhere from six months to extreme cases of three years for simple surgeries such as ACL operations and hip replacements.
Rationing occurs in the United States by a patient’s ability to pay, with one exception; emergency rooms are required to treat patients regardless of whether or not they can afford to pay. This safety net is what makes our current system inefficient.
A good system to model after would be the Massachusetts health care system. It stimulates proper levels of health insurance coverage for citizens through healthy tax breaks to both employees and employers. When both sides are effectively stimulated through this process, this health care system allows the citizens to obtain proper coverage as well as freely be able to decide when and where to seek treatment; something that doesn’t exist in a universal health care system.
It doesn’t make sense to model our health care system after a country where the health care system is deemed unconstitutional. It doesn’t make sense to model after a country where the quality of coverage is less than what we currently have. Furthermore it doesn’t make sense to model after a country where citizens flock across the border to seek treatment in our country.
GABE MURPHY
Opinion Writer