The problem with universal healthcare

As the Democratic presidential candidates push their agendas for universal healthcare, the New York Times examines the one place in the United States that already has it: Massachusetts (read article).

The problem that Massachusetts is facing is that they can't find enough doctors to handle the load. Want a physical? You'll have to wait until May 2009. Another consequence is that doctors find themselves overloaded with patients, having to limit the time spent on each patient.

Long waits for minimal care. Is this really better than what we have now? Massachusetts and New York are trying to set up systems where medical school debt is forgiven, in exchange for practicing primary care in underserved areas. Of course the costs for these programs weren't factored in when the initial estimates for the programs were considered. How do we handle it? More debt gets passed on to the next generation. More taxes get raised to pay for a system that doesn't work.

The problem with universal health care is that it does nothing to reduce costs. Instead, it just swaps who pays for it in a shell game. Forget these plans. Find ways to lower the cost (like tort reform to lower malpractice costs, like allowing insurance companies to sell nationwide) and health care will become universal.

Too Much of A Good Thing

Congress has passed its expansion of the SCHIP program, which President Bush has announced he will veto. The SCHIP program provides funds to insure uninsured children. The Democrats say this program is vital to our children's health. Bush says it goes too far into socialized medicine. The problem is they're both right.

The SCHIP program is incredibly valuable, but this new version of the bill expands coverage to families making $60,000 a year. Senator Charles Schumer of New York is pressing hard for the bill, based on the fact that $60,000 for a family of four doesn't go that far in New York City. The problem is to then apply that number on a federal level, you're covering more than half of the Midwest. States like Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alabama will have most of their populations eligible for this program. That pushes it into the realm of socialized medicine.

The other problem is that Congress wants to expand coverage, but everyone who is covered under the old law is not receiving benefits. We're simply leaving them behind and moving on to other people.

While Bush is saying the cost is too high, I disagree on that count. To fix this bill, they should leave the amount of money allocated for it alone, but lower the eligibility number. If New York City can't get by on $60,000, perhaps the city should lower its taxes and stop taking so much of its residents' paychecks. After all, NYC residents pay city and state taxes as well as one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. That's a pretty high burden on people who can't make it on $60,000 a family.

Perhaps a formula based on a percentage could be created. Only the state's lowest earning 10% of the population would be covered, regardless of income. Something needs to be done to keep the program running, but expanding it that far really is socializing medicine.