Universal Healthcare and the Liberal Mind
Attention-grabbing headlines aside, from taking away your freedom to choose your own doctor, to banning super-size soft drinks and straws, who can truly understand the liberal mind. With Left-Wing Plans, under the “Green New Deal,” even the homes of the Rich and famous may be in jeopardy, according to Presidential hopeful Mayor Pete.
Yet despite this illogic, wealthy talking heads are relentless in their support for liberal causes. Universal healthcare is just one loud example on the list of new “rights” being created by Buttigieg, Sanders, and other Socialist Democrats. Supporters “free healthcare for all” claim that healthcare is a human right. The interesting thing is that under their plan, it would take away many other freedoms. Consider the case of the Geriatric Rocker, Mick Jagger from earlier this year — supporters of free, universal health care can’t explain why U.K. citizen Mick Jagger had his life-saving heart surgery in the U.S.
Here’ a simple explanation:
There is a tradeoff between time and money. When something is “free,” it often comes with the “cost” of having to wait in line, being told when, and even if you will be allowed to have your treatment or procedure.
The Rock legend knew that he could either get “free” heart surgery in the U.K. (where he is a citizen), at the cost of having to wait on a waiting list, or, he could get the surgery immediately by paying out of his own pocket to have his surgery in the U.S.
We’re you surprised to read that Mick Jagger had heart surgery in New York City? It’s actually quite spectacular (from my perspective), that his surgery was here in the United States instead of in England, where he is a citizen? Why? Because it provides a much-needed compare and contrast opportunity.
Like most rich people who live in countries that have universal health care, they come to the US when they are very sick because they would go onto a waiting list for their treatment in their own country. If he wasn’t a rich celebrity, Jagger might well still be in England … waiting to die at 75.
And he’s not the only one to understand this tradeoff between time and money — examples:
- When Robert Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, Canada, needed cancer treatment, he came to the United States and paid for his health care with his own money.
- And when Canadian Liberal MP Belinda Stronach needed cancer treatment, she also came to the United States and paid for her health care with her own money.
- And when Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams needed heart surgery, he, too, came to the United States and paid for his health care with his own money.
Many liberals in the U.S. are hoping to force us to adopt the same kind of universal health care that exists in Canada and the U.K. So here’s the question that every thinking person needs to ask those liberals: If the U.S. does adopt such a system, then where are the celebrities and politicians from other countries going to go when they need life-saving health care?
America’s Healthcare vs. England’s Healthcare
The combination of quality and wait times for receiving healthcare in America is better than it is in England. A large part of that is because of England’s National Health Service.
English citizens like that they don’t have to pay for their healthcare directly, but doctors are overwhelmed by the sheer amount of patients they have to see. In cases where the emergency room is full, ambulances wait in a queue before patients are allowed in. While there are options to purchase private insurance out of pocket for better healthcare or through a private employer, the amount of British citizens who have private insurance is only 10.5%.
In America, most citizens who work full-time hours are covered. In a 2017 study by the United States Census Bureau, over 91% of American citizens had some form of health insurance. 56% percent of Americans had insurance through their employer, 19.3% through Medicaid, 17.2% through Medicare, 16% through direct payment, and 4.8% through the military.
Mick Jagger’s celebrity status and wealth helped him afford a different quality of care. This shows that if people are able to afford better, faster healthcare, they will take advantage of that option. The census study from 2017 also shows that if American citizens have the option to avoid being on government healthcare they will.
People should be cautious in calling for universal healthcare based on what we have seen in England with hospitals and doctors being overwhelmed. If we move to universal healthcare in the US, we might seem similar problems to what England faces now.