Forget this "Free Healthcare" business!

I had one of those shower moments where I started replaying conversations and debates I've ever had or witnessed. For some reason, my mind had settled on the idea of universal healthcare (not something I've argued much on either side, but definitely witnessed a lot). Proponents often describe this as "free healthcare", which leads to opponents arguing that "it's not free" since it's paid for by taxes. I've even seen one argument that you'd have a hard time convincing a doctor to use his skill and many years of medical school learning and training for no cost.

"Yeah," said the voice in my head, "just like police and firemen should expect to be paid for their service."

And that's when it occurred to me. The proposal shouldn't be "free healthcare"; it should be "make healthcare a public service". Because that's really the truth. No one's really suggesting that anything be "free". They're suggesting that the costs be covered by society as a whole (i.e., government, paid through taxes), rather than by the individual using the service at that point in time.

While I can understand the appeal of calling it "free", I think proponents do the discussion a great disservice by using that word. It implies, at best, a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, and, at worst, a lie covering it up (since both sides know that health care costs actual money, that it's not really "free" at all).

Do I think a mere change in word choice will clear up the whole discussion? Absolutely not. There are still plenty of points to argue — quality of care, the ability of government to manage, and the actual cost for the public, just to name a few — I do think it would at least let us get past the part where we argue about "free" being "free" or "not free".

No comments: