Socialized health care ineffective policy

By Ben Childs

Socialized medicine, or universal health care as it is commonly called, has proven to be a wildly popular idea.

Each major presidential candidate touts their version as the end-all be-all solution to the health care problem in this country with catchy slogans and extraordinary promises. Yet while these things may win the candidates poll points, they cannot cover up the fact that, unless major changes are made, the math just won't work out.

With our population both growing and aging, the demand for health care will not be decreasing any time soon, so the real costs will only be getting higher. Given the rising demand, the only way to counteract the rising cost of health care, or any market good under these circumstances, is to increase its supply.

Yet, historically, the government has done just the opposite. Licensing through the American Medical Association, the Federal Drug Administration and other restrictions and laws has artificially decreased the supply below market demand, raising its cost and pricing out consumers who need it the most.

If these government restrictions and bureaucracies were not in place, there would be more doctors and medicines available, and the price for all health care goods would drop considerably.

This is no new idea, as the government has had its hands in the health care system for years. Milton Friedman wrote about the occupational licensure problem well over forty years ago, citing doctors as the prime example of licensing, granting undue benefits to the few that have them and excessive costs for the general public that must pay above what they would in an open market.

The government programs proposed by the candidates do not deal with increasing the supply side of the equation, just a redistribution of the demand.

Health care coverage will cost exactly the same as it did, except our taxes will be raised. The taxpayer's money will still be used to pay for health care that is priced above the market rate, not to mention the ghastly bureaucracy one can only imagine will spring up as a result of socialized medicine.

Even scarier than the economic result of having too few doctors is the prospect of actually having too few doctors to serve the nation. Opponents of socialized medicine often use horror stories from countries like Great Britain and Canada, where there are long lines at doctor's offices and hospitals and people are turned away. Of course that can't happen here, because this is America, right?

If everyone is granted government access to doctors, and the amount of doctors does not increase, it's guaranteed to happen. When it does, we will be back to square one: People will not be getting the health care they need.

The real question is this: Why don't these proposed plans deal with the supply side? Not surprisingly, the AMA, the FDA and drug companies are all on the pro-licensing side of the issue, and perhaps even less surprisingly, all are either major special interests or government bureaucracies.

If these licensing regulations disappeared, many prospective doctors and medical companies who couldn't get into the business would jump in, increasing competition, efficiency and quality. Doctors that charged excessively would have no customers, drugs that cured people would hit the market faster and unneeded red tape wouldn't be tolerated anymore.

Health care is a market good, and like all market goods, it is best when people are free to choose the good that suits them the best. People have been paying above what they would be paying in an unregulated market for far too long, and with the new health care plans that are being proposed, the real cost can only be more. This is the real health care problem, and it will continue to be problematic whether the government socializes medicine or not.

Unfortunately, occupational licensing and FDA regulations don't make for sexy political slogans and, as history shows, fantastic promises from charismatic politicians trump sound economic theory most of the time.

It's not that I just "don't understand" or have no compassion for those that cannot afford health insurance. Rather, I believe that health care is far too expensive in this country. I believe that more people should have access to it, and the fact that they can't afford it is wrong. However, I believe that the government can't have its cake and eat it, too.

I think it's good that we are thinking about the citizens in this country that need our help the most. However, I think it does us all a disservice if we don't find solutions that actually work. Regardless of how government controls have priced them out in the past, it's time that they get access to the health care that they deserve.

Ben Childs is a junior English major and general business minor.