The most prevalent issues with free healthcare
Waitlists
When medical treatment is a “right,” long wait times and limited access to cutting-edge treatments are inevitable consequences.
The waitlists are so long that people end up paying out of their own pocket to get the appointment sooner, which entirely defeats the point of universal healthcare.
Here is a waitlist of average times for appointments and surgeries in countries with free healthcare.
To put things in perspective, here is a waitlist in Croatia, which is by no means a third-world country.
1. MRI scan – minimum six months and up to a year
2. Surgery (if not life-threatening or urgent) – eight months
3. Breast Ultrasound – minimum six months
4. Artery Doppler – minimum one year
Medical services standard
Quality is one of the biggest sacrifices made in a government-funded system, especially, but not exclusively, in economically disadvantaged countries.
The quality of medical services in countries with socialized healthcare varies widely. Some countries, such as Denmark, have excellent medical care systems. Countries with a more free-market approach, such as Singapore, have efficiently managed healthcare costs while delivering high-quality care. However, it’s much easier to achieve this with Singapore’s population of 6 million than America with its 330 million people. Other countries, such as Venezuela or Cuba, have healthcare systems that are in crisis.
There is a clear pattern. The medical treatment standard in poorer socialist countries is so bad that paint falls off the walls, there is never soap or toilet paper in restrooms, and the dermatology office looks like in the picture below. This picture is from the only general hospital in the entire county where I live in Croatia.
Limited choices
Another downside of a government-controlled healthcare system is the limited choice it offers consumers. Unlike a free-market system, where competition fuels innovation and improvements in quality, a single-payer system often leads to a one-size-fits-all approach that neglects individual patient needs. This strips away the patient’s ability to select the best care for them.
Private healthcare in countries with free healthcare
“Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, who researches international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.”, he told Vox. He further says, “Some countries, like Australia, even take aggressive steps like offering tax benefits to encourage citizens to enroll in private coverage alongside their public plan. 47% of the country’s residents carry private coverage alongside their public plans.”
Many countries have supplementary and complementary coverage by private insurance to pay for non-covered benefits. For instance, in Canada, private plans covering vision, dental, and prescription drug benefits are taken out by two-thirds of the populace, as these are not part of the public plan. Meanwhile, 39% of Danish citizens have private insurance for benefits not covered by public healthcare, such as physical therapy.
Many English citizens buy private coverage to gain better, faster access to benefits that are actually covered by the public system.
The role of government
The idea of universal medical care is rooted in socialist or social-democratic philosophies, which state the government should control various sectors of the economy. Yet, such government control inevitably leads to inefficiencies, a lack of innovation, and bureaucratic red tape that can and has put lives at risk. High taxation isn’t simply a burden on people’s paychecks; it has broader economic implications. It can deter investment, prevent entrepreneurship, and create a disincentive for business expansion.
Essentially, government-funded healthcare trades economic vibrancy for a medical care system that is free in name only.
There are also ethical implications to consider. For example, who should decide who gets priority access to medical services? Centralized governments are more likely to have a monopoly on power and resources, which can lead to an abuse of power for personal gain. This can create an environment where a lack of accountability and transparency is widespread. Those in power may use their position to benefit themselves and their immediate circle, so nepotism and corruption inevitably become the norm, which can eventually result in an oppressive society.
No healthcare system is perfect
American healthcare is arguably the best in the world in terms of quality and waiting times. However, the system needs some improvements. Most doctors and American Medical Association (AMA) members tend to be interested in expanding coverage that builds on the existing system. If a person is paying their taxes, they pay for insurance, and they end up getting cancer or diabetes, they shouldn’t be forced to declare bankruptcy and sell everything to cover medical bills. Changes need to be made, but that has to happen in accordance with the country’s government structure, culture, and mentality. Rash change should not be made based on the ideological viewpoints of another country with mediocre health services. Each nation differs in rules, culture, and size. It is unreasonable to expect something that works in Denmark to work in America.
Conclusion
Free healthcare is a complex issue with no easy answers. While it is important to provide medical care to everyone, it is also important to understand the costs involved in rapid change. The notion of free healthcare may sound altruistic and ideal, but the reality is far more complex and costly.
Through high taxes, reduced choice, and the potential for lower quality, the actual costs of free medical treatments are not as straightforward as many would like to believe. Socialist governments are more likely to support free medical care than capitalist governments. Further, they may be willing to sacrifice economic growth to implement universal healthcare. The capitalist model, although not perfect, offers flexibility, choice, and innovation potential — factors often compromised in a government-controlled system.
Read Part 1 of the series.
