The topic of free healthcare, a euphemism for “socialized medicine”, has been on the table for quite some time now and I can't help but harken back to a 2011 debate between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Rand Paul. The topic was healthcare and Comrade Sanders was, of course, advocating for socialized medicine to which Paul essentially rebutted that socialized medicine was unethical due to it being a form of state coercion, and that no one is entitled to the services of others.
Here’s the full excerpt:
"With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have to realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
"Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services, do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? You’re basically saying you believe in slavery. You’re saying you believe in taking and extracting from another person. Our founding documents were very clear about this. You have a right to pursue happiness but there’s no guarantee of physical comfort. There’s no guarantee of concrete items. In order to give something concrete, you have to take it from someone. So there’s an implied threat of force.
"If I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care, do you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be. If you believe in a right to health care, you’re believing in basically the use of force to conscript someone to do your bidding."
Many will argue that the parties responsible for providing these services are in no place to complain since the state will still be paying them and that anyone who refuses to accept payment from, or work for the government can easily be replaced. By stating this, they are implying that they aren’t being coerced because they are being paid. Horseshit! A lot of blood, sweat, and tears—the blood of the patient, the sweat of the physician, and the tears of the families—are put into doctorship. They are under enough pressure as it is and the last thing they need is the state holding them at gunpoint and having them work until they are told they can retire. This is a not a job that profession should be forced to engage in. In fact, if the state were to gain full control over healthcare in the U.S., just as it can easily replace someone unwilling to work under state coercion, so will his replacement be equally disposable when a doctor with more enthusiasm takes the stage.
I find it interesting how in the aforementioned debate, Sen. Paul brings up “conscription”. It takes me back even further to a time before I was born, when the draft was instated for the Vietnam War. Essentially, many young men were forced either to witness vacuous amounts of bloodshed and in some cases have to bury children, or face imprisonment, which in most cases led to a high PTSD and suicide rate that continues to this day. Why put the physicians in charge of treating these veterans through the same hardship?
Don’t think that because doctors make enough money to live comfortably that they are exempt from suffering. The suicide rate amongst female physicians is 250-400% higher than that of females in any other field of work, including the military. (This is one reason I am skeptical of the ethicality of allowing women to partake in military service, but that's another subject for another time.) And although the wage gap has been disproven, it serves as a factor. It fuels the mentality of, “They don't pay me enough for this shit.” That’s the danger of blind belief, and yet, Democrats and left-wing news publications continue to convince them that they are being oppressed in this sense.
PTSD is also common and currently leads to a reduction in performance, which I fear, will worsen if more people are hired in this line of work because the selection process of doctors is likely to become open, allowing doctors who were previously unqualified a place in healthcare in order for a quota to be met.
As of 2002, the U.S. has a per capita of 2.3 physicians per 1,000 people, leaving us at #52 in healthcare. That is the consequence of the freedom to choose said careers, compared to countries like Cuba and Uruguay and the aforementioned careful selection process, compared to France and the United Kingdom. Some may be familiar with the Michael Moore documentary, Sicko, a scene in which he takes a trip to Cuba with a few volunteers of the 9/11 attacks who received poor healthcare in America for the injuries they suffered while assisting. At first glance, the healthcare they receive is commendable due to the availability of the doctors and the lack of expenses they were charged for service, but when pondered upon, they just went to one of the better doctors in Cuba. Conversely, in UK, members of their Conservative Party are slashing junior physician salaries and boosting their work hours.
Rest assured that my concern for the concern for the poor is present. I no longer want to see chronically ill children whose family cannot afford private health insurance be refused full treatment because their Medicare has been overdrawn, while others with overpriced insurance have tubes in every orifice and vein until the last plug is pulled. Privatization of the healthcare industry leads to value-based pricing of insurance, and since everyone would need it, the deductibles for insurance premiums would be a lot lower than they are when competing with the government-managed health insurance. That said, if an individual has a need, it is the individual’s responsibility, or that of those who claim responsibility for him, to meet it, not that of a stranger with no obligation to keep him alive.
Healthcare is a stressful and traumatizing career and serious risks in productivity and economic growth serve as imminent and this talk of socializing it is twaddle that consists of a questionable narrative and anyone who pushes for it can take that social contract and shove it right up their Kant!