Currently, many Americans are demanding national health insurance. Even many physicians are advocating expanded federal involvement in health care. There are many problems with our health-care system, including access to care and escalating costs. However, the U.S. Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to provide health care for its citizens.
If the founding fathers had been able to see our day, along with society's complexities, they would not have supported such a concept.The Bill of Rights clearly prohibits federal involvement in responsibilities that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It was their understanding that providing care for the sick was the responsibility of individuals, not the government.
Advocates of an expanded federal role in health care point to the "success" of socialized health-care systems in other countries. Historically, these systems are still in their infancy and are already fraught with problems.
A broad view of history tells us that a welfare state cannot maintain itself. The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe attest to this reality.
Some rationalize that national health care doesn't represent a total welfare state; therefore these principles do not apply. Our current Medicare system (national health insurance for those over age 65) proves otherwise.
Many Medicare patients find it difficult to obtain health care. Current access problems may be worse than those that existed prior to the inception of our current socialistic health-care programs.
The following statistics show us why: The projected 1991 median overhead expenses for an internist are $122,000. If all patients I saw during the year were Medicare patients, 1991 Medicare rates would pay me $101,000 - a net loss of $21,000.
If I did not accept Medicare rates and "balance billed" all patients, Medicare's policy of establishing a legal limit on the amount that can be charged would allow me to make $1,750. This is far less than my annual costs of repaying student loans.
Physicians do make a good income, and the above situation (seeing all Medicare patients) is only hypothetical. However, many people in business, industry and government have incomes that exceed those of primary care physicians.
Physicians also spend 11 to 15 years in training, during which time the costs of education and minimal basic necessities far exceed their minimal incomes.
Furthermore, from 1975-1989, the inflation adjusted income of primary care physicians decreased by 6 percent while overall health expenditures increased exponentially.
A little-realized additional cause is a result of Medicare fees. They necessitate increased charges to other patients in order for physicians to remain in business. This represents a "double taxation" for private patients.
Can a system that parasitizes others in such a way survive long term without a negative impact? The results are already taking their toll.
Over the past few years, several general internists in the Salt Lake area have been forced out of their practices because of the Medicare system.
Nationally, these problems result in only 57 percent of this year's internal medicine residency positions being filled. Since internists provide the bulk of care for those over 65, who will provide their future care?
Another review of history gives us valuable insight. Lenin espoused the philosophy that governmental control of the economy would improve access to basic necessities. For several years, his programs may have helped. However, over the years, the loss of individual initiative and incentive resulted in a system that is currently crumbling and is unable to support itself.
Even in countries (i.e. Sweden) where democratic socialism has been practiced for 40-50 years, the standard of living and the economy are decaying. Their problems far exceed those of our current mild recession, which is a result of our own partial socialism and deficit spending.
Instead of providing more socialistic health-care programs, we need to perform necessary but painful reconstructive surgeries to gradually remove these cancerous growths from our government; allowing the more efficient forces of a free market and voluntarism to work out our problems.
This is not a perfect solution, and many problems would still exist. However, they will exist no matter what we legislate. Only increased morality, voluntary charity and self-reliance can solve our problems. If we as a society fail at these efforts, we will reap the adverse consequences.
The return of the health-care system to a free market economy is a drastic course of action, but nevertheless a vitally necessary one if we are to preserve the ideals of our Constitution. These principles, unlike socialism, have withstood the tests of time and will continue to do so if we will support them.