Head-to-head: Universal healthcare leads to limited freedom

The United States should not have universal health care. There are three main reasons as to why I oppose it. First, countries who have universal healthcare have seen increased wait times. Second, Charlie, a baby from the UK who was sick from birth. His parents were unable to choose his medical treatment in a socialized healthcare system. Third and finally, it would stunt the innovation that the US sees now.

First, countries who have universal healthcare now have seen an increase in wait times for medical treatment, which in some cases has led to the death of patients. This is a major red flag of the system.

As we’ve seen in the Canadian Providence, the wait times for treatment vary. The Fraser Institute found that wait times in Ontario could be as long as 15.4 weeks or 41.5 weeks in New Brunswick. This is completely unreasonable. It has gotten to the point that Canadians are looking for options abroad rather than waiting for treatment.

According to the National Post, in 2013 as many as 41,838 Canadians sought treatment in another country, and 52,513 left in 2014. The Huffington Post also reported that Canadian doctors are encouraging patients to look for treatment elsewhere so they can be treated more quickly. Wait lists are created so cost can be controlled which means that treatments are only offered so often.

Second is Charlie Gard, the British baby who should’ve survived. National Public Radio reported on the story and explained that “British law allows doctors to override the wishes of parents in treatment decisions if it’s in the child’s best interest.” Which meant that a court upheld that the hospital did not have to allow the parents to transfer Charlie. They wanted to bring him to the United States to seek an experimental treatment but were unable to do so since their parental rights had been stripped.

According to the story, Charlie’s parents dropped their effort to transfer him, saying the treatment might have helped if they’d been allowed to access it sooner, but that they now agreed it was too late. If the United States were to switch to universal healthcare, it could have been a story taking place here.

Third, universal healthcare would lead to a loss of innovation. The government would limit spending to be most cost-effective, which would lead to less innovation. Private organizations would still have to fundraise to give physicians and scientists the ability to find innovative cures. Physicians for a National Health Program advocate for universal healthcare and use the federal government’s foresight as a defense.

The federal government should not be in the business of healthcare. Take Medicare as an example. It’s clear that the federal government did not have the foresight to run Medicare because if it did, Medicare would not run out by 2028 and it most certainly would not have taken money out of the fund.

The United States was a country built on freedom. Universal healthcare in practice in other countries has only limited freedom.