These results weren't surprising. With tens of millions of Americans uninsured and costs through the roof, change is obviously -- and urgently -- needed. But voters are rightly skeptical of paying for a massive overhaul of our system.Already, the U.S. government pays for around half of all healthcare expenditures. In Great Britain, where health care is socialized, 95 percent of all healthcare costs are paid for by the taxpayer.
The problem with government-run health care isn't just its price tag. Canada and other countries with “universal” care have seen increased government intervention in which types of treatments patients are allowed to access are based on cost rather than effectiveness.
For patients like Linda O’Boyle of the United Kingdom, such policies can be deadly. She was diagnosed with cancer and told that medication not covered by the National Health System would increase her chances of survival. So she used her savings to pay for the medications. Upon discovering this, the NHS stopped allowing her to have chemotherapy because government laws ban patients from combining public and private care. She died in March.
Patients in the U.K. and Canada also have longer wait times to see specialists than do insured patients in the United States. Twenty one percent of Canadian hospital administrators said it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman. In the United States, fewer than one percent of hospital administrators said it would take that long.
With horror stories like this, it isn't surprising that 62 percent of the young U.S. voters polled said they would not support healthcare reforms that could increase wait times, availability of medicine, or increase government involvement in decisions affecting patients.
Luckily, a few commonsense reforms would enormously expand access to affordable care within our existing system.