Privatization of the health care system and its impact on service quality

Health Care Privatization

Unlike a government-operated, tax-funded system -- the type of system, generally referred to as national health care, currently operated in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, the majority of healthcare funding in the U.S. comes from the private sector. With respect to these private funds, health insurance has replaced out-of-pocket consumer spending as the major source of payment. Many critics of the American system point out that there are too may uninsured Americans, that there is too much money being spent and that many employees receive restricted coverage. They claim that national health care would eliminate these problems while providing better service at a lower cost. However, existing evidence shows that taxes would skyrocket and health care services would dramatically deteriorate under national health care.

Advocates of national health care ague that it would reduce costs by: eliminating unnecessary, duplicative paperwork; adopting mechanisms to stretch health care dollars such as bulk purchasing of medications; and implementing measures to control future health care costs such as negotiating fair fees with doctors and budgets with hospitals.

But, some economists put the cost of national health care reform at $339 billion per year in additional taxes. A look at a proposed legislation by Representative Marty Russo and Senator Paul Wellstone to establish national health care reveals a huge tax outlay for American taxpayers. Their plan requires employers and the self-employed to pay a tax equal to 7.5% of wages. The top individual tax rate would rise from thirty-one to thirty-eight percent. Corporate income taxes would increase from thirty-four to thirty-eight percent. and, Social Security benefits would be taxed at eighty-five percent rather than the current fifty percent.

Those in favor of national health care also believe that our health care is inadequate compared to other countries with national health care. The U.S. spends more per person on health care than any other country in the world, but the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in the overall quality of health care that it provides. We are the only industrialized country that lacks universal health care. More than forty-two million Americans have no health insurance, with access distributed unequally among rich and poor and among the races. In addition to leaving broad segments of the population uninsured or under-insured, there are significant gaps in coverage for: prescription drugs and medical supplies; dental, vision and hearing care; long-term care; mental health care; preventive care for children; and treatment for substance abuse.

While the above critiques of the American system may be valid, service would be far worse under national health care as evidenced by service shortage situations that currently exist in many countries. For example, in Great Britain, a country with a population of only fifty-five million, more than 800,000 patients are waiting for surgery. In New Zealand, a country with a population of just three million, the surgery waiting list now exceeds 50,000. In Sweden the wait for heart x-rays is more than eleven months and heart surgery can take almost two years. Surgeons in Canada report that, for heart patients, the danger of dying on the waiting list now exceeds the danger of dying on the operating table. Emergency rooms there are so overcrowded that patients awaiting treatment frequently line the corridors. Not only is there a long wait for care, but care is frequently denied to patients who prognosis is poor. In Britain kidney dialysis is generally denied patients over the age of 55. At least 1,500 Britons die each year because of lack of dialysis.

Countries with national health care systems also lag far behind the U.S. In the availability of modern medical technology. In Canada, high-technology medicine is virtually unavailable. In addition to being biased against new medical technologies, national health care systems generally discriminate against nontraditional practitioners, such as naturopaths and chiropractors.