A blog for America's neighbour to the north that support Mitt Romney and what he stands for. As the U.S.'s closest friend and ally Canada is greatly affected by U.S. policy and politics.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Health Care - The Grass is Greener On Mitt's Side

Warning – Even though the first paragraph is solely about Canada, I promise that I will make a point pertinent to the US election later!

Canada is known for many things, including its famous world class health care system. Sure we pay higher taxes in Canada, but we all get “free” health care. Even film maker, Michael Moore rants and raves about the superiority of Canada’s health care system in his movie “Sicko” (even though he based much of the movie on his opinion instead of facts). Unfortunately, the grass isn’t always greener on the other side. Now I am not ripping on Canada, as I am proud of my country and what it stands for. However, our supposed world-class health care system isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It started off great decades ago, but over the years it has worsened. Canadians actually complain vehemently about long wait times at hospitals, the yearly decrease in what is actually “covered” under the public health plan and, most of all, the increased taxes to pay for it all. Despite its downside, I do consider Canadian health care to be among the best in the world, but at the same time I believe it needs improvement in many ways. The root of most of the problems associated with Canadian health care is the fact that it is run directly by the government.

Unfortunately when the government runs social programs such as health care, it is extremely inefficient in its use of funds. Since there is no competition, it often spends the money unwisely, creating superfluous departments and committees, hiring way too many people to do the job of one person (hence why the Soviet Union was so inefficient and corrupt). However, it is also important that the government have a role in some aspects of public life, such as health care, otherwise only the wealthy would be served and the poor left to fend for themselves. This is the one of the biggest catch 22s in politics. The republicans say that the government should tax people less and offer less social programs, where democrats say that the government should intervene by raising taxes and offer the public more social programs. This fundamental difference creates much contention between these two parties. But isn’t there a happy medium? The answer is YES!

When I first heard about what Mitt Romney did for health care in Massachusetts I was blown away. He was somehow able to get the best of both worlds; he made health care universally available to the whole state, yet he did not raise taxes. This is an amazing accomplishment and it easier said than done. So how did he do this? Well basically he made it mandatory citizens for of the state to purchase health insurance if they wanted the basic personal exemption on their income tax and therefore less of a tax refund. Essentially, just as people must buy car insurance, they would also have to buy health coverage. But you’re probably saying “wait just a second there man….don’t they just end up paying the insurance instead of tax….that’s just the same as raising taxes, only calling it ‘health insurance’ instead”. This is true, except that collecting taxes means that the government will then have to use the money in the pot to provide the health care, which essentially means that it will most likely be used inefficiently. On the other hand, citizens who pay for their own health plans instead of the paying increased taxes, can shop around and get the best rates. The availability of competition means better consumer prices and ultimately more health care coverage for less money than if it had been done through tax collection and government run health care. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather pay $500 on my own than $1000 in taxes for the exact same services.

Mitt has an amazing ability to improve the social life of Americans without having to raise taxes or burden the people. With the US debt becoming unbearable to look at, a president is needed who can balance the national books without sacrificing the things that make the United States a great nation. That president is Mitt Romney. He has done it in the past and can and will do it again.

No comments: