Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Orwellian Terms: Single Payer Health Care

Britain has it. Canada does, too. So does most of Europe. We're sliding towards it day by day. What is it? "Single payer health care:" a double Orwellian term if I ever saw one. Let's start with "Single payer."

Britain, Canada, and Europe have what is doublespeak termed "single payer health care." What this really means is that the government is the entity that makes sure that each and every citizen is insured, and claims that each and every citizen has equal access to health care. (We'll get to that in a minute.)

The government doesn't have money of its own. It can't go out and get a job. It can't create more money. So how does it pay for its "single payer health care?"

Simple. Each and every citizen that does have a job pays for it. In other words, each citizen who holds a job pays for his or her government health insurance, as well as a portion of the health insurance for each citizen who does not have a job. Until the country reaches a tipping point, as Britain did recently, where the ratio of workers to non-workers falls below 3 to 1. Britain's ratio has fallen below 1 to 1, meaning that each worker entering the workforce will have to be taxed an amount to cover his or own, and all of someone else's, care.

The other term for this is "socialized medicine." "Nationalized health care" works to name the phenomenon just as well.

Now, let's talk about the other part of the double doublespeak: calling the results of this type of system "health care." I could share personal anecdotes galore about the problems endemic in socialized medicine. I was raised on Welfare, child support, food stamps, and Medicaid. I could also, instead, provide links: our lovely government health care system--and here's where I say we're slipping into it, since our health care system is already 52% socialized--has released documents that reveal a whopping amount of fraud, and an accompanying cover up.

Biggovhealth.org has several different parts to it's website, including testimonials (both from patients and policymakers), horror stories, and facts. Check out all their links to get to why I think this is a bad idea--and Orwellian doublespeak.

I will grant that there are arguments for this type of health care for certain segments of the population--namely, those who are already covered: children, the elderly, and the disabled. I do not believe that this would be a good solution for each and every person.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation on older posts, so until further notice...you're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.