First of all, let me say that I understand why some Americans cry out for socialized medicine in this country.  Emotionally, it sounds like the right thing to do.  "Shouldn't little Johnny get the same healthcare that Bill Gates get?"  The answer is no.  Healthcare is not a human right that everyone should have regardless of whether or not they can pay for it.  Socialists argue that healthcare is too important to be left up to the market.  Really?  Well, let's take a peek into other countries to see how they're doing with socialized medicine.

In March of 2002, the London Observer reported that an "unpublished report shows some patients are now having to wait more than eight months for treatment, during which time many of their cancers become incurable."  The World Health Organisation [sic] published a report that said around 10,000 British people die needlessly from cancer each year - "three times as many as are killed on our roads."

"Okay, but how about Canada?  Now there's a model if I ever saw one!"  You're right, it's a model for disaster.  The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver think-tank, puts out an annual report entitled "Waiting Your Turn."  In 2006, the report showed waiting times for various treatments, showing how long it took for patients to see a specialist once they had been referred by their general practioner.  The shortest, now get this, waiting time was for oncology: 4.9 weeks.  The longest was for orthopedic surgery: 40.3 weeks.  

The median wait for an MRI in Canada was 10.3 weeks, but in Newfoundland, it was 28 weeks.  The median wait for a CT scan was 4.3 weeks, but in Prince Edward Island, it was 9 weeks.  

Despite the long waits, often ending in unnecessary death, private practices are prohibited, by law, from providing health care that is covered under the Canadian Health Act.  In addition, they cannot accept payment from the patient, nor anyone else for services.  British Columbia's Bill 82 says that a surgeon may be fined by up to $20,000 for accepting fees for surgery.  In other words, it's against the law if you choose to opt out of the system.

Many doctors in Canada have simply said, "enough," and have left the country to practice elsewhere.  In fact, an article by Canada News in March of 2003 stated that 10,000 left the country during the 1990's.  In addition, medical schools in Canada are reporting a huge drop-off in their number of graduates.  What is Canada doing about it?  They're using nurses to take up the slack.   Many Canadians are pouring into the U.S. for their care.  

Do we really want government employees running our healthcare system?  Have you ever been to the post office?  Most of them I've encountered walk as if they've just been shot up with an entire syringe of Thorzine.  Do you want people like those down at the DMV, or those involved in government education to take care of your medical needs?  "Well, they're not motivated by profits!"  Give me for-profit healthcare any day.  Give me people like those who work for UPS or Fed-ex, people who sell me my groceries, people who dry clean my clothes, people who sell me my phone service or internet service.  In other words, people who know I can go elsewhere if they don't get me what I want when I want it.  

In the business world, profit demands accountability.  The forces of profit make producers accountable to us, but government related services have no accountability.  Not so you say?  I refer you to the previous paragraph.  Government-run schools have delivered poor quality returns and for that, the folks that are in charge of that get salary increases.  You and I pay for that increase of course.  "Well, just fire them!"  Don't make me laugh.  

Zero price to the user does not equate to zero cost.  If a product or service has a zero price, demand will always exceed supply.  In order to meet the demands, other measures must be taken.  One way is to make people wait for it.  Another way is to make someone in charge of dictating just who can and cannot receive the product or service.  In the case of healthcare, that person could say, "Those who smoke are not eligible for a lung or heart transplant."  

The solution for the healthcare problems we have here in America is not more government involvement, but rather less.  I know a bit about "guaranteed issue" health insurance.  Basically, that means that you are guaranteed to be able to purchase a policy, regardless of your health.  The insurance company, which is not financially supported by the government (and rightfully so), now has to issue a policy for the woman that was just diagnosed with a brain tumor, the guy with AIDS, the child with Cerebral Palsy.  Think they might experience some claim losses?  What happens next?  Well, everyone else who has a policy with that company will soon experience a rate increase.  Now, these guaranteed issued policies do not have the same level of coverage that a healthy person has, but the company still must issue a policy to someone that really is uninsurable.  If your neighbor wanted to borrow your lawn mower, and he told you, "By the way, I'm going to break it and let you pay to have it repaired," how motivated would you be to loan it to him?  If you're an insurance company, and the government says you must issue a policy to someone receiving kidney dialysis, and his premiums are $250/month, how excited are you to give him the policy?  Do ya think his doctor bills might exceed $250/month?  Now you run the risk of losing your other policyholders, those in good health, when they receive their guaranteed rate increases.  

This is getting to be very long and I apologize, so I'll end with this:  Little Johnny is the result of his parents having sex.  That doesn't give him the right to free healthcare.  That's mom and dad's responsibility to pay for it; either through sharing the risk with the insurance company or to pay for the whole thing out of their pocket.  I don't have a problem with people who want socialized medicine.  I just have a problem when they try to drag me into it.