by Matthew Ryan

Created on: May 07, 2008

In the current election (in the United States), both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are pushing the notion of "healthcare for the people." More or less, they both wish to adopt socialized medicine for this country. In fact, their platforms are quite similar, if not identical.

At this point in time, for health reasons, I do not make much money. In fact, my income is low enough that I qualify for healthcare from the state (NY). I believe this experience is providing me with a pre-cursory knowledge of a universal healthcare system. Are there any problems with such a system? Well, yes. Initially, when my health insurance was provided solely by the state, the only dentists I was allowed to visit were about 100 or more miles away. Hardly a convenient trip when there are plenty of dentists in my city. Ultimately, I was forced to go to a local dentist and have a relative pay for it out of pocket. Since then, my health insurance has changed. Now, the state buys my insurance from my place of employment. This is a little bit more expensive for me, and little bit less expensive or more efficient for the state. When it happened, I was mildly annoyed that I had no say in the matter, but it did ultimately work out for the best; it now appears my insurance may cover local dentist visits.

Perhaps Hillary and Obama will address concerns like these with their healthcare plans. I for one think a "Universal Healthcare Plan" for the United States begins with a "noble" sentiment: it would be nice if we could provide healthcare for the poor and impoverished. However, I just don't think it is very feasible and, ultimately, I think it is misguided. For one, I absolutely don't want the government telling me who I can visit, and who I cannot (as in my experience with the dentists above). Nor will I be pleased if my "coverage" changes significantly without my having given consent or my having any sort of recourse, should I not support said changes. Lastly, I oppose the rise of the "nanny-state." Our generation has given rise to the "Tweens." Formerly an appellation reserved for young hobbits in the Lord of the Rings, it has now come to encapsulate the equivalent years for humans. A hundred or so years ago, the age of fifteen or so marked the beginning of adulthood. Later, the age got pushed back to somewhere between eighteen and twenty-one: we were permitted a few years to goof off as teen-agers. Now, the entire decade of the twenties has become an extension of our teen years. I hardly think that is a positive development.

Ultimately, I do not support socialized medicine. Ideally, I believe individuals should pay their own way in just about everything. Unfortunately, rising costs have made that impossible when healthcare is concerned. This, of course, leads to individual health insurance, which in turn leads to benefits at one's place of employment, and now we seem to be heading for socialized medicine. I don't know what the best solution is, and I know there is no way to turn back the clock, but I feel considerable consternation with this development.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Ryan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.