Striking Pitfalls of Universal Healthcare: A Harsh Reality Behind the Facade

In a recent incident highlighting the pitfalls of ‘universal’ and ‘free’ healthcare, Canadian citizen Glen McGregor shared his shocking experience. After injuring his knee during a softball match, he reached out to his local medical imaging center, only to discover that it would take one to two years to secure an ultrasound appointment. This incident casts a harsh light on the unforeseen consequences of deeply flawed healthcare systems.

This story is a stinging reminder of the grim reality attached to the attractive lingo of ‘universal’ healthcare. While the concept may seem appealing, the reality sees ordinary citizens waiting for an eternity to avail basic healthcare facilities. For McGregor, what should be a routine ultrasound, has transformed into a long, uncertain wait.

This scenario presents a glaring snapshot of how unchecked and overburdened healthcare systems, often the result of widespread subsidization for illegal immigrants, can lead to ridiculous constraints on its citizens. Such systems also unintentionally promote bleak alternatives, such as Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID), for patients who give up on the torturous wait or simply cannot afford it.

Where does the United States stand in this? The cost of healthcare may be significantly higher, but engineered without a bloated ‘free for all’ policy, the accessibility tends to be quicker and more efficient. This stands in stark contrast to the broken systems where essential healthcare is bogged down in bureaucracy.

‘Obamacare’, a prominent example of central economic planning applied to healthcare, often touted the benefits of ‘universal’ and ‘free’ healthcare. However, it’s poignant to observe that the actual execution often falls dramatically short of these promises, leading us to question the misguided trust placed in the government to handle such crucial services.

The proponents of these systems often fail to grasp the irony within their defense of inferior infrastructure. An example that comes to mind was a defender of the Canadian system, who saw the limited number of MRI facilities in Canada as not only acceptable, but desirable compared to the United States.

She bemoaned the fact that every town in her region in the United States had an MRI facility. To her, this seemed like an unnecessary allocation of resources. The notion that the government could better judge the required medical resources for the region was flawed, at best, and has been put to the test in McGregor’s story.

McGregor’s situation makes us ask the question: would supporters still uphold such ideals in the face of a two-year waiting list for a simple ultrasound? And suppose they clear that obstacle, only to face another waiting list for the actual MRI? Is that their concept of ‘quality healthcare’?

The rosy rhetoric of ‘Healthcare is a human right’ pales in comparison to the harsh realities of government-controlled healthcare systems. The people who once backed the system are left in the lurch. Their once guaranteed ‘right’ hangs by the thin thread of a long waiting list.

Governmental proponents advocate that they and their associates would be better suited to manage resource allocation and societal goods/services production. However, the pages of history are littered with examples of governments not living up to these promises.

A focus of socialism and communism’s critics often lies in the political oppression associated with these systems. However, apart from highlighting the political facets, one should not ignore the economic oppression and privations that such regimes have imposed on citizens.

Let’s remember that a significant portion of deaths under collectivist regimes have not been due to political strife, concentration camps, or wars. Instead, it was the desperation caused by economic hardships, leading to starvation, that claimed millions of lives.

Unfortunately, even with historical evidence and painful lessons from the past, similar philosophies continue to find new proponents. A clear example is the recent NYC mayoral candidate who openly embraced socialist principles, trying to charm residents with alluring proposals like government-owned grocery stores.

NYC, and indeed many cities, should review the grim results from Canada, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cambodia, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union before handing over their economy to the government. Without appropriate checks, even the most essential services could turn into tangled webs of inefficiencies and inaccessibility.

Money and political power would shield a select few in such regimes, leaving the rest of the population grappling with the price to pay. Therefore, one must thoroughly scrutinize any governmental system promising to manage economic affairs on their behalf.

One of the critical takeaways from these incidents is to tread carefully while dealing with central planners, communists, socialists (be they claim to be ‘democratic’ or otherwise). Checks and balances are essential to avoid any spirals into inefficiency, or even worse, totalitarianism.