Healthcare that HurtsThe downside of nationalization

As the general election draws ever closer, it is time for Brown students and the United States public in general to get down to the nitty-gritty. It is time for you as a voter to examine each political issue in detail so that when you vote for a presidential candidate and his or her platform, you know precisely the future you are choosing. No more support of the nebulous word “change” and the hollow phrase “yes, we can.” It is time to know exactly which agendas you are championing. For all the physicians, medical students, pre-meds, and young aspiring doctors reading this article, I would like to call your attention to the issue of universal health care.

I assume that most of you are aware that both Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) are in favor of making healthcare in the United States a government-sponsored program. No matter which Democratic candidate wins the nomination, Senator McCain (R-AZ) will be the only presidential candidate in favor of the existing free market healthcare system. This fact alone should elevate McCain to the position of being the unquestionable choice for the next president among physicians and upcoming physicians - that is, if they desire an occupation that will continue to be rewarding both financially and intellectually.

The educational track to become a physician is one of the most demanding and expensive among all higher-education options. In order to practice medicine, an individual must attend undergraduate school for four years, graduate school for another four years, and then residency for three to six years. After medical school, the average Medical Doctor has about $140,000 in debt. Still, with all these negatives, the choice of medicine as an occupation is attractive to many because of the appealing salary that will compensate for all the previous sacrifices. This perk would disappear, however, after the enactment of national healthcare. First, the tax burden of every American would increase. The state of Wisconsin proposed a universal health care plan in 2007 that would have raised the state income tax by ten percentage points. U.S. citizens would see similar results in the federal income tax with a national healthcare plan.

Second, as many doctors today are frustrated with Medicaid and Medicare (two government-run healthcare organizations), as well as with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), aggravation among health providers would only increase after adoption of universal healthcare. The HMO formula for payment of doctors is based on capitation; doctors receive a constant, upfront pay for a certain period of time for an individual, regardless of the number of times the patient gets medical attention in that time period. Medicaid and Medicare offer physicians a fraction of what it costs to treat their individuals. Thus, if an HMO patient visits the doctor frequently, and with most procedures paid by Medicaid and Medicare, costs often exceed the doctor’s revenue for the surgery, examination, etc. National healthcare is similar to these two organizations, but on a broader scale, and therefore a physician’s income will be set by the federal government, and at a lower rate than now received . An important consequence could be that, during times of recession, the government could choose to reduce doctors’ pay to alleviate the deficit.

A medical occupation also currently offers the lure of ingenuity and pleasure in helping patients. Doctor flexibility would be severely curtailed under a national healthcare system. Already limited by the bureaucratic legislation of Medicaid, Medicare, and HMOs, doctors find that they have to follow mandated guidelines for certain procedures across the board. They are unable to treat patients on a case-by-case basis due to financial limitations set by the government and some insurance companies. In other words, politicians, in the form of universal healthcare, would force extensively-educated physicians to treat their own patients similarly in every circumstance, even though these physicians might deem an alternate set of actions more beneficial to remedy special cases.

So with universal healthcare, doctors will not be able to exercise their best judgment concerning patient care, and will also most likely have to turn patients away from their hospitals and clinics. With “free” healthcare - though I have already mentioned that it is not free due to increased taxes and lower medical salaries - patient inflow will increase. With no dissuasion of a fee, individuals will visit the doctor for minor problems that do not require medical attention whereas before they might have thought twice before going to a doctor. The result would be the turning away of patients and longer waiting lists for care. In 2007, patients in Canada had to wait an average of 18.3 weeks for surgical treatment whereas the United States’ wait is a couple of weeks. Physicians will not get the reward of aiding every sick and injured client, but rather will be forced to reject many due to full schedules.

It is clear that a vote for the Democratic candidate this November would be a fatal blow to healthcare. However, I want to make clear to readers not pursuing medicine that national healthcare is not only harmful to the practitioners. I can easily point out that quality medical care would decrease due to more governmental regulations and fewer incentives to pursue a medical profession, and due to the fact that lengthened waiting times and higher taxes would impact the layman significantly. In addition, a large portion of U.S. jobs and national GDP would be eliminated by the removal of the current insurance companies. To prevent this disaster we must uphold our trust in Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” The only way to provide high-standard healthcare is to prevent government intervention and allow the free market to determine productive allocation of resources. If physicians, today and tomorrow, want their careers to remain lucrative and mentally invigorating, they should realize the intelligent choice is to support John McCain.