Published: August 20, 2009 08:33 pm      

Better alternative to nationalized health care

I have been hearing a lot about our health care system, and how it’s supposedly the “best in the world.” That’s usually coming from conservative radio, and those who listen to it.

I received an itemized bill from the hospital I took my son to last winter when he was having breathing problems. On that statement was $140 for my son to breathe one vial of Albuterol from the hospital nebulizer.

We have a nebulizer at home for him, and a package of 30 vials cost $19.99. I’m not sure where $140 comes from, nor do I think the hospital could explain it. Do I think my insurance provider is getting fleeced? Of course. Does the U.S. really have the best health care system in the world? Not quite.

However, even worse is the idea to essentially nationalize health care like our friends up north. A lot has already been said about Canadians coming down here for surgeries, and proper care being denied to the elderly.

Both sides can debate those issues all day. But there are things that can’t be disputed. The first is the fact that innovation and new technologies are all but stifled under nationalized health care. What is the motivation to invest large sums of money on groundbreaking medical research if there is no chance of ever seeing the return?

This is why Canada didn’t get the CAT scan until the mid-1990s. Another unintended consequence is the federal government having to subsidize medical school as well. If your income potential is $50,000 a year, are you really going to spend $200,000 for schooling to become a doctor?

Therefore, the government will have to fund universities to bring down the costs of getting a doctor’s degree. No one who supports government sponsored health care could give a straight answer on how to fix these problems.

As opposed to having our bloated, inefficient government run our health care system, why not make health insurance from a private company mandatory instead?

In return, insurance companies could offer a wide array of policies for every budget, just like auto insurance. You’ll get what you pay for, in terms of percentage covered.

And those on cheaper policies may still stiff the hospital on the remainder of the bill. However, being stiffed 50 percent on a charge is better than being stiffed 100 percent. As a result, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue could be saved.

And if it’s true that lost revenue is causing a rise in health care costs, then this increase in profits would result in a drop in the cost of services.

Insurance companies could then lower their premiums, and each American could get more coverage for their dollar. More coverage for each American means even less lost revenue to the healthcare industry.

By making the only government involvement the passing of mandatory private insurance, not only does every American have some sort of coverage they can afford, but capitalism remains intact throughout the healthcare sector.

This would never happen, because there are too many opportunistic Democrat congressmen jockeying to take credit for “saving” Americans from the “evil” healthcare industry. And the Republican party is too busy trying to bury our president prior to the next congressional election to care about the American people at all.

It took 1,000 convoluted pages for the giant waste of space we call a Congress to explain a ridiculous idea for state run healthcare. I believe I’ve summed up a better, more feasible idea in one paragraph.

Adam M. Robinette

Herndon, Va. (formerly of LaVale)