I believe Andrew Sullivan has too much faith in free markets. Regarding nationalizing health services, Sullivan argues that the “government collective[ly] decides everything,” and he argues a preference for “freedom and the market to rationalism and the collective.”
Has privatizing health care in the Untied States resulted in patient-doctor freedom? A reader at Andrew Sullivan’s blog offers some empirical insight, “Do you seriously believe that a health care system that leaves millions without adequate care, that bankrupts sick individuals and families, that consistently ranks at or near the bottom of all industrialized nations by almost every metric used to evaluate such things, and does so at double or triple the costs of other nations with better overall health care, is a superior system?” Certainly, both systems have their problems, but some things, like health care, shouldn’t be privatized, since making a profit from health care seems morally wrong.
Furthermore, as a measure of which system is better, some compare the overall health between Brits and Americans. However, there are several factors that should be considered to measure a nation’s health, such as access to information and education, diet, exercise, exposure to carcinogens and pollution in addition to several other lifestyle, social, and environmental factors.
While studying as an undergraduate and graduate student overseas in Britain, I found the NHS very welcoming and comparable to treatment that I had received in the United States (granted my experience with the NHS was limited, and I only sought health care services regarding my health after returning from Madagascar and advice on preventative medicine for my subsequent return). As a result, I believe Sullivan’s assessment is somewhat harsh and unbalanced, especially since Sullivan doesn’t represent the average American in terms of wealth, so he probably can afford the best doctors, health coverage, and insurance. Furthermore, private healthcare is available in Britain, so there is a choice.
Currently, I can’t afford health insurance as a student. I hope nothing happens to me, because under the American system it can change your future dramatically, but when I was studying in Britain, I did not have these worries. Another dissenter at the Dish sums it up:
I take your point about the health care system in the UK and the downsides it has. But, having also lived in the UK, I don’t think your analysis is completely accurate. The “government collective” only makes health care decisions if you go to an NHS facility. There are plenty of private doctors around, and if someone chooses to go to a private doctor and either pay their own way, or purchase health insurance, they are free to do so (as I did during my stay). As it stands now in the US, most people have their health care decisions made for them as well, only instead of government employees, those decisions are made by HMOs and health insurers who make the decisions based on corporate profits. I fail to be convinced how it is worse to have those tough decisions made by government (which can be admittedly dreadful but is still — on some level — answerable to the people) rather than a corporate entity (whose fiduciary duty under the law is to maximize profits for its shareholders).
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
