When it comes to national healthcare, who is really winning?

I find it interesting that when it comes to American Presidential elections, it’s possible to present part of plans that don’t work and score points in polls because your opponents plan is even less likely to work. Take the recent hot air being blown around by the 2 leading democratic candidates. Senators Obama and Clinton.

Both Senators are discussing nationalized healthcare. Both plans are massively flawed. Neither has worked out the details of the plan, not any serious estimate of the cost for the programs. Both claim that these programs will reduce cost and save Americans money. And they both think the other is just playing political games, seeking votes in Iowa.

I am no expert in national healthcare. I do know that there are many in national healthcare systems around the world that die while waiting for treatment or even examinations – for say breast cancer or other diseases – like in England and Canada. I know that some individuals like Michael Moore would have us believe that even the healthcare system in Cuba is better than in America. Yet Mr. Moore and people from around the world travel to America to get treatment and surgeries rather than stay in the nationalized systems in their own countries. And I know that as it exists today, America has the best healthcare in the world.

Knowing just those simple facts, and that millions of Americans don’t have health insurance, I pondered the accusations of Senators Clinton and Obama. Is there a difference? Can they make it better? Should this be a direction America should go in?

Well when you think about it, what does the government do well? Seriously. The one thing I have noticed in 40 years is that the government moves paperwork around better than anything out there. There is so much paper moving around (electronic or not) that we need other institutions just to manage the way we move the paperwork around.

There has never been a single issue that the government has been involved with that has simplified over the years. Take taxes as an example. Every election promises are made to simplify the tax code. Never happens. Can’t really. It takes perhaps thousands of workers in the government to process, check and re-check all the documents and write offs. It that committees to look for loopholes in the code and other committees to make changes so the loopholes close. Perhaps thousands are involved in making sure that there is no waste of taxpayer dollars.

Now imagine healthcare. One plan says that there will be 50 separate organizations, with paperwork that goes with that. In the other plan, if you don’t pay for coverage, you get fined. Both plans mean bigger government, with more workers, which inevitably means more taxes. And efficiency goes out the window.

So do you really want either plan? Is bigger government, less efficiency, and the likelihood of having the healthcare system become like Canada’s or England’s, or worse yet like the VA, worth it? In the end aren’t they both just puffing up their chests in the hope of getting elected?

**This can also be found at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Be the first to comment on "When it comes to national healthcare, who is really winning?"

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: