Friday, October 23, 2009

On the Socialization of Healthcare

Oh, how many heated arguments have I been in, with valid and invalid arguments flying back and forth on the topic of socialized services. The question is, why is America so adamant in rejecting a public health care option? You wouldn't need to stop getting health insurance, if you don't trust your government-provided alternative. If you chose to use your public option, employers wouldn't have to discount a premium from your paycheck.

The main problem is taxes. Of course, here in America, taxation is a big deal. A really, really big deal. Consider its history: The very reason why the puritans packed their bags and came to the New World was precisely to run away from a tyrannical monarchy and unfair taxation. Their liberties were being stomped on, they were being forced to observe one religion, money was taken away against their will, and they were fed up with it. This country was founded on the premise that the government should not have the power to force you to do anything.

What happened then? Along came taxation. Taxation was imposed on the citizen in 1862 in order to finance the Civil War. The statute underwent several rate increases until 1918 when it reached an all-time high to finance World War I. Up until now, taxation and, more importantly, the distribution of tax rates among the people based on their income, has been one of the most controversial political topics in the country.

You might argue that several European countries have socialized systems that work. Of course, that depends on your definition of "working system". To many Americans, it's not a working system because your liberties are being taken away by forcing you to pay taxes for something you disagree with. This is an easy assumption to make, looking at Europe from our vantage point, that they are all unhappy about having to pay all these taxes and Big Brother is twisting their arm for them.

However, after speaking to their citizens you might get a different idea. After hearing some of their opinions, they seem perfectly happy with collectively footing the bill for everyone's basic needs. Their reasoning is the following: I'm taking care of my neighbor because down the road I will need my neighbor to take care of me. It seems that they agree with being taxed for these basic services, out of their own volition.

What are "basic needs" then? I've heard arguments that the term is ambiguous and thus it is invalid to consider health care a basic need. The problem is many regard health care as not a right, but a privilege. As a privilege, they don't consider it a basic need. However, I think we will agree, no one with health problems should be left to die due to limited finances. With that premise in mind, it is easy to acknowledge that health care is indeed a basic need, as are food, shelter, police protection, fire protection, and education. If its population has limited or no access to either of these, a country will have a sub-par standard of life.

Where does that leave socializing certain industries, like education, postal service, fire department, police department, and health care then? The main argument against it is that your liberties are taken away because your money is being taken away without your consent, against your will. This particular problem of a government limiting a citizen's freedom to deny pitching into the collective pile from his or her income to many is a direct contradiction of the premise of this country's foundation. It's certainly not a question of money: For the average household, the increase in taxes for socialized health care will be comparable to the amount taken away from your paycheck by your employer for health insurance. Even if the increase is marginally more, it wouldn't pose a problem of financial stress.

How do we solve this problem then? We can all agree that the current system is tragically flawed. When a person meets his or her demise due to a death-causing illness that went untreated because of the person's limited finances, we know things need to change. Nationalized health care seems like the way to go, if not for the aforementioned forceful taxation.

A simple solution would be for the government to give the citizen the choice to opt out of being taxed. If the citizen chooses to opt out, he or she doesn't get to take part of the socialized service he she decided to opt out of. For example, if you opt out of paying education taxes, your kids cannot go to public school (or you have to pay a monthly/yearly premium for them to do so, effectively making private school payments). If you opt out of paying taxes for postal service, you don't pay subsidized mailing rates. If you opt out of paying health care tax, you don't get health care unless you have insurance, or foot the bill yourself (the way it's done now). This way, the government will only tax those whom of their own volition choose to be taxed for these services. Services like the police and fire departments, sanitation, road services would remain the way the are now, as everyone needs these services available to them.

In the end, a perfect system that caters to everyone's needs and makes everyone happy will never see the light of day. One thing is clear though: The current system is broken and it can be made better. It is up to us to think up better ways to approach the way basic needs are met for the population of our country. In the 21st century, we cannot be the only developed country in the world that lets its citizens die because they cannot afford to pay stratospheric health care bills.

No comments: