Government would ruin health care

A letter in the Sept. 1, Daily Herald urges support for "universal health care," to which I would say, "Fine, as long as it is not administered by the government."

The letter writer cites U.N. statistics suggesting that our health care is less than the best (47th, according to WHO). The majority of the member nations in the U.N. are socialist, and they see the existence of the U.S., with its numerous health care alternatives, as a threat. We shouldn't expect them to give our health care (or much of anything else) a good report.

There are many problems with universal health care systems. For one thing, they are all administered by the government, and governments cannot "administer" surpluses. They can only "administer" (i.e., control) when there is a shortage. The result is rationing. They are also notoriously bad at reporting their own shortcomings.

That is why, when Canadians or British subjects have an urgent medical need, they come here (if they can afford to) for their health care.

The Internet is replete with anecdotal evidence that older people in such countries are routinely given "X" months to live, unless they are treated (e.g., for terminal cancer), and then are told that the earliest treatment available is twice that far off. With no "private health care," patients given such death sentences have to go elsewhere, at their own expense.

Since the government reports the statistics on its own performance, such situations never show in the reports. Obviously, people treated outside the country don't show in the statistics on the nation's health care. (Often, these high-risk patients appear in the data on the U.S. health care system.)

The letter writer says 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care. If we had government health care, that number would be several times that large.

Except in highly-publicized cases, people at or above retirement age get little or no health care. The idea is that, if you are no longer a "productive" member of society, society shouldn't its waste time or money maintaining your health.

The letter writer says "we have an enormous parasite on" our health care system, that health insurance companies absorb 31 percent health care revenue. Nothing is said of the absorption of considerably more than that by our Social Security "system." Anyone who thinks government health care would be more efficient than Social Security is whistling Dixie.

Our compensation culture is at least as big a parasite as insurance. Ads are on TV every day, inviting people to call if they know anyone who might have suffered as a result of some drug or procedure. You can bet, if socialized medicine is invoked, that such lawsuits against the government health care system, for malpractice, malfeasance, etc., will be outlawed.

If you think health care is costly now, just wait until the government controls it. Whenever there is a monopoly, the incentive to hold costs down disappears. And under universal health care, there will be no alternative and no reversing the move to it.

Proponents of government health care always exaggerate the problems we have now, underestimate the costs and exaggerate the benefits of their proposal. They need to consider that there are some things for which we should not look to government. Healthcare is one of those.

Peter G. Malone

St. Charles