Critiquing Socialism in Health Care

Of all issues, the one that will most effectively test our belief in the free market will be how we handle health care. The future of our economic system of choice is in question, for better or for worse, and that alone makes for the issue to be an important consideration.

Additionally, though, we will not have a true culture of life as long as we both a.) have the means to effectively care for everyone, and b.) continue to go on without all receiving said care, more or less.

Bearing that in mind, it would seem that the obvious solution is some form of socialized medicine. All receive care, the cost comes out of our taxes. Simple.

The problem, of course, is that this system does nothing to lower cost, the escalation of which is what got us here in the first place. The world’s most advanced medical technology, a strict regulatory environment, a litigious plaintiff-centered liability setting, an increasingly inactive lifestyle nationwide, the removal of the cost burden from the consumer to insurance companies, and public insurance for healthcare’s largest demanders (seniors) have all jointly caused acceleration in health care cost, and the inequity in receiving it that one would thus expect. Socialized medicine does nothing to refute any of these, and in fact enhances them.

I don’t have a third method that I’m bringing to the table. I know this, though: socialized medicine should not be considered until it can be proven sustainable. I highly doubt it can be sustained without some sort of system that reunites consumers with cost, at least somehow.