Opinion: Universal health care can come with drawbacks

How many of your letter writers have factual knowledge of universal health care in the "civilized nations" mentioned? How many Canadians or British or other "civilized" people have these experts personally spoken to? How much time have they spent living in those "civilized nations"? My wife is a British citizen, and I have "legal alien" status in the United Kingdom; we live part-time in England and we are familiar with the British National Health System -- also with the Dutch and German systems, by prior residency.

-- A few years ago, a neighbor where we spent our summers was in bad shape, and his National Health Service doctor sent him to a specialist. By the next summer, tests proved an urgent need for heart bypass surgery; the next summer, his condition was worse. He had long since quit driving and he needed to rest three times going up the one flight of stairs to his condo. When we arrived the next summer, we found that Stan had died, still awaiting the "urgent" surgery. Yes, Stan "gladly embraced" the NHS.

-- My wife's 11-year-old English granddaughter needed orthodontic work. The NHS agreed, and her name went on the waiting list to see an NHS orthodontist. When? Oh, in three to five years. Her grandmother and I said, "It has to be now" and paid for private dentistry. She is becoming an attractive young lady, no longer self-conscious, no longer ridiculed by schoolmates -- no thanks to the vaunted NHS.

Look beyond statistics: What percentage of "Americans with no health insurance" are that way by "choice"? Too many of these uninsured people spend so much money on the "necessities" of cell phones, computers, Internet fees, flashy cars, etc., that insurance premiums become an "unaffordable luxury," even when their employer shares the cost.

And with special-interest-serving politicians in Washington, universal health care will become another tax burden on the hard-working "middle class" -- the "filthy rich" can buy anything they want. Government employees (including politicians like Sen. Hillary Clinton) will never join universal health care because their program, created by Congress and partially funded by tax money, is far superior to any "universal" plan they might slap together. The "underprivileged" (based on experience in civilized nations) will overload the universal health care system to the point that the "middle-class" working man will be forced to "go private" because he can't sit in the waiting room day after day after day to see an overworked doctor.

Yes, health care reform is urgently needed, but this nation lacks the statesmen to actually perform the task in a manner to benefit all Americans.
-- R.J. Radford, Clearwater

The sign of a socialist scheme

Four letters in the Dec. 29 Times espouse the notion of health care as a right, and all without exception stumble over false analogies.

"Rights" come in two styles: positive and negative. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are really "the right to be left alone" and are thus negative rights; they only require that others not do something. The "right to health care," on the other hand, is a positive right; others are required to do something to implement that right. Specifically, those others would be required to fund and provide the health care now being seen by many as a "right."

Positive rights are a typical sign of a socialist scheme: They nearly always involve coercion in order to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. All of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights are negative rights; they require that the government not do certain things. Our nation was built upon such negative rights.

"Single-payer systems," so highly touted in the letters, really amount to a monopoly on the provision of health care. Unlike a free-market system where you may choose not to carry insurance or may choose which carrier has your business if you do have coverage, the single-payer system will give you a choice of one carrier, and it will not be voluntary. To say that such a scheme is "not socialistic" is to deny the very definition of socialism.

Further, the single-payer bureaucracy will require a one-size-fits-all strictly-by-the-book regimen of health care. One only has to look to Canada to see what lies down that path: Canadians flock to the United States for procedures that have three-year waits in Canada. Sweden's widely praised system is on the verge of collapse with the government being unable to raise taxes high enough to cover the program's costs. If that "makes economic sense," it's in a far different economy than any of us have ever experienced.

Declaring health care a "right" necessarily declares choice "not a right." That is more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than the United States; we all know what happened to that economy.
-- Frank Clarke, Oldsmar

Skewed priorities

Reading all the Dec. 29 letters on health insurance, I was struck by the realization that the federal government reserves to itself the right to provide universal mail service (perish the thought that the last-chance notices from the Publishers Clearing House should be left to the private sector), but we leave matters of life and death up to individuals. Sounds like we may have our priorities a bit skewed.
-- J.S. Phillips, Palm Harbor

Watch out for Bush's Medicare 'reform'

Re: Bush will propose Medicare overhaul, Jan. 3.

President Bush has made Medicare reform his priority and will likely add prescription drugs to Medicare. But it will be at the cost of changing Medicare radically. He says he wants to make Medicare more competitive with the present HMOs and private insurance. He is aiming for a fee-for-service program and wants to eliminate the medical safety net that Medicare and Medicaid provide. I guess he hasn't been reading the papers recently. HMOs are eliminating many services, closing down offices and downgrading plans. The reluctance to provide these services and the difficulty patients experience waiting for approval of these services can be tantamount to a death sentence at our age.

When people discuss the difficulties in the English and Canadian socialized medical program, the lengthy delay between receiving services is pinpointed as the disadvantage. I am wondering how much more difficult is it to receive care in those programs as compared to our HMOs and other programs. It is hard for me to envision quick care except for emergency service. Most individuals I have talked to cannot get appointments with specialist for months. How does this information relate to competition? Most doctors are not hurting for patients, so what changes would make the situation more competitive?

President Bush is not interested in good health care. His vision is to privatize services. He wants to eliminate the prevailing functions of government that provide the security net to most of us.

The main reason I am writing is to alert the people who may foolishly vote for him in the next election. Please watch what he does very carefully and do not let the drums of war blind you. He feels that because he appears to be very protective on the international front, you will be fooled into thinking he has your best interests at heart. Don't fall for it!
-- Marilyn Ginsburg, Boynton Beach

A threat to the safety net

It's "shaking in the boots" time, again. President Bush is now going to meddle in Medicare! Bush and his advisers have plans to give Medicare beneficiaries a "powerful incentive" to enroll in more efficient, less costly health plans. Less costly for whom? Surely, not for the people who will have to pay for it -- maybe less costly for the government.

Their idea of a "powerful incentive" is to make Medicare unworkable by reducing amounts paid to health care providers so that eventually no provider will accept Medicare patients.

If they succeed, there will be no safety net for medically needy individuals. But that's all right, Dubya will be more able to guarantee his tax breaks for the wealthy.
-- C. Paul, Brooksville

Bush effort to fix Medicare is needed

As President Bush offers up his common-sense plan to overhaul Medicare to get a handle on its inherent fraud, waste and abuse, he is getting no help from Democrats.

Sen. Ted Kennedy prefers yet another poorly implemented Band-Aid on Medicare with his "no strings attached" prescription drug benefit.

With an influx of baby boomers on the horizon, Congress needs to get serious and muster the courage to finally fix a poorly implemented Medicare system. Seniors cannot afford to suffer another year.
-- Robert C. Gotshall Jr., Palm Bay

FSU enforces higher standards

There have been some suggestions recently that the football program at Florida State University under head coach Bobby Bowden is somehow out of control because of reports of problems connected with a few players.

I would like to submit that the incidents these observers cite actually show the exact opposite. FSU, in fact, has tougher policies than those set forth by the NCAA or the athletic departments at many universities, and it insists that its athletes adhere to them. Minnesota Viking Randy Moss, for example, may have been the most talented football player ever recruited by Florida State, but he never played a down. As a freshman, he was dismissed from the team after breaking an agreement with coach Bowden and athletic director Dave Hart to stay out of trouble.

The NCAA would have allowed star wide receiver "Snoop" Minnis to play in the 2001 Orange Bowl, but FSU kept him out for academic reasons.

Though allegations against quarterback Adrian McPherson have not been resolved, the athletic department immediately deemed it inappropriate for him to represent the university on the football field while the investigation unfolds.

Many universities may have been willing to overlook their starting quarterback missing a final exam, but Chris Rix was held accountable by the university and the athletic department because he violated an FSU policy.

None of these cases involved any violation whatsoever of NCAA rules, nor did the NCAA ask us to take these remedies. Our actions have reflected the respect that the athletics program -- and specifically the football program -- has for the entire university, including academic integrity. Ours is a program very much in control, one that teaches athletes that we will enforce high standards.
-- Talbot D'Alemberte, president, Florida State University, Tallahassee

Where's the criticism of Parcells?

Re: Glazers' deal with Parcells, editorial.

Your Jan. 1 editorial describes the Glazer family as "wheeler-dealers" and implies that their word means nothing. But while vilifying the Glazer family, you fail to point any criticism at Bill Parcells, who appears to have backed out of a written contract with the Bucs, having left them in last year's embarrassing situation. If you were the Glazers, who have taken responsibility for the Bucs' success, would you not have looked for compensation in a similar way?

As our Bucs finish the most successful regular season ever, what purpose does your criticism of the Bucs' owners serve? At this point in the football season, we should salute the tremendous coaching, incredible players (both as athletes and community members), and the ownership team that has not been afraid to commit a large investment to ensure that the Bucs are contenders year after year, even when a high-profile coach like Parcells backs out of his contract obligations.
-- Herbert E. Wollowick, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page