Beverly Congdon supports market-based reform to make health care costs more affordable and available to Americans. She argues, as this chart shows, that universal health care causes long waiting lines.

The leading Democratic Party candidates, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have both proposed universal health insurance. Clinton would require all citizens to have health insurance. While she has proposed government mandated universal health insurance plan, Obama believes full universal health care coverage is necessary. They both promise to make both private and government insurance plans available to everyone.

Sounds pretty fine and dandy, doesn’t it? A perfect society! Free (not really) health care coverage for all! I mean after all, Canada, Britain, and most European countries all have universal health care coverage…seems like a good way to go, right? Wrong! Take a look at the facts before daydreaming about a flawless universal health care system, because there isn’t one that exists.

Unfortunately, this is reality in which the dream of universal health care (or insurance) has become a national tragedy for every country that has attempted it. This tragedy is so because universal health care results in unnecessary tax hikes, unnecessary prolonged waits to receive medical attention, unnecessary deaths, and an ineffective government-run system. Unnecessary and ineffective—the perfect words to describe universal health care. A social program such as universal health insurance is simply something a government bureaucracy is incapable of running.

The primary reason why I am against universal health insurance is not because I think some citizens undeserving of health care. Rather, I am being realistic in forming my opinion on the issue. After all, the question of universal health care is not purely a social issue; rather it is primarily an economic one.

There are basic economic principles that need to be taken into consideration when transforming a market-based system to be controlled by the government. Primarily is the issue of scarcity—an unfortunate but unavoidable and inevitable problem. This problem of scarcity exists because goods and services are limited. In this imperfect world, there will never be enough to satisfy everyone. So, in the end we are forced to look at the situation reasonably and decide: Who deserves what? Scarcity is present in the issue of health care because there is a limited amount of doctors, nurses, and hospitals (services), as well as a limited amount of medical drugs and technological devices that can be produced (goods). This is why the system of capitalism works—the people who work hard will receive more benefits. It’s the fairest way and it’s the way that health care should be approached.

However, I will go into further detail about why the consequences of universal health care/insurance outweigh its benefits.

First and foremost, if the U.S. adopts a universal health insurance plan, the quality in health care will decrease as a result of underpaid and overworked doctors and medical employees. Consider the time, dedication, intelligence, not to mention the nerve, it takes to become a doctor. In order to become a doctor, one has to attend four years of undergraduate school, four years of medical school, followed by three to seven years of a residency. This is eleven years of schooling at minimum! After taking that into consideration, it’s hard to believe that we have any doctors. Fortunately our capitalistic system rewards those who work harder with higher salaries. But by socializing health care, doctors and other employees of the medical field will be paid by our tax dollars. Salaries will reduce and remain equal throughout the profession. This will obviously result in diminished incentives to become a doctor. These hardworking and intelligent individuals will simply do the smart thing: go into a field that promises a better career: a career in which the harder working individuals will be rewarded. The few doctors that will remain will be primarily of lesser quality due to the “brain drain” from the medical field.

To top it off, the remaining doctors will be overworked as a result of both the shortage of doctors, and the increase in medical care demand (since now health care will be available to more people). These doctor shortages also directly result in a longer wait for patients.

Our tax dollars will also be insufficient to keep up with medical technology. Today America has the best technology because of our market-based health care system. A government bureaucracy will not have the means, nor the innovative, to keep providing Americans with new medical technology.

Need some proof? Let’s have a look at Canada and Britain, shall we? The Canadian Medical Association estimates that the country falls 300 people short of the 2,500 medical graduates needed. In the 1990s, about 10,000 doctors left Canada to work somewhere else. The Fraser Institute’s “Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada” presents statistics that show patients in Canada have less access to advanced medical technology. London’s Observer reported that many British patients have to wait more than eight hours for treatment, “during which time many of their cancers become incurable.” According to a World Health Organization report, about 10,000 British people die unnecessarily from cancer each year as a result from socialized health care. The Observer went on to report on a recent academic study that showed “National Health Service delays in bowel cancer treatment were so great that, in one in five cases, cancer which was curable at the time of diagnosis had become incurable by the time of treatment.” Don’t forget that the population of Canada is a mere 33,092,300—that’s almost a million residents less than the whole population of California! And if universal health care doesn’t work for them, how’s it going to work for a nation with 9 times the amount of citizens?!

These extended periods of wait have even caused people to go to extreme measures to receive medical treatment. While some may ignore their condition, others might dangerously attempt to cure it themselves. Universal health care has even caused “medical tourism.” These are people who travel to other countries to receive medical attention or to have operations done. These people are endangering themselves because the countries they travel to often have weak malpractice laws and also because they will not receive adequate follow-up care. These patients will have little recourse to local courts or medical boards if something goes wrong. Or worse, what about those who cannot afford to travel outside the country? Even when one needs a serious operation, they are forced to wait for months. These people have the risk of dying as many of them need prompt medical attention—life-threatening conditions need immediate attention or otherwise, there are extreme consequences.

Last but not least, universal health care would raise taxes by extreme amounts. Do we really need more taxes? Hilary Clinton’s health care reform plan is estimated to cost 110 BILLION DOLLARS! Any universal health care plan for the U.S. would demand around the same amount of money. I don’t know about you, but I think such a hike in taxes should be avoided. I mean who wants to strain American citizens when the benefits are so minimal?

So how to reform health care of the United States? I believe market-based reform will best clean up the current health care mess. To get at the root of the problem, health care has to become more affordable. To accomplish this without strangling health care providers and without distorting the market, there should be tax deductibles for health care providers to make health coverage more affordable. Other incentives should also be provided for private health care sectors. A certain percentage of tax credit given to companies would influence them to offer health coverage for their employees. For those disappointed with the health coverage their employer provides, there should be the alternative to create a custom-made, as opposed to a “one-size-fits-all,” health plan.

In order to avoid overwhelming doctors, and in order to reduce the wait to receive medical attention, I believe more incentives and choices should also be available to the public. For example, those who lead a healthy lifestyle would receive a tax deductible. Tax deductibles could be given to nonsmokers, those who exercise often, and those with a healthy diet. Those who refrain from making visits to the doctor for unnecessary or petty reasons (for a cold, for example) would also be rewarded with a tax deductible. This would encourage individuals to visit the doctor for adequate health concerns only, and in turn reduce the wait for patients with REAL medical concerns.

Lastly, it is absurd that in some states the residents are only allowed to purchase from within their state. Any resident of any state should also have the freedom to purchase health care plan that better meets their needs, and better fits their budget, even if they have to purchase it across state lines. So what if health care providers will now have to compete across the nation? It benefits the people after all by encouraging all health care providers to compete in providing the best health care coverage possible.

So instead of overtaxing our citizens, why not give tax breaks as incentives? Instead of overworking and underpaying those in the medical profession, why not make their job easier?

In the battle of universal health insurance versus market-based health care, the latter is triumphant.