About the Author
Another misguided argument in favor of a single-payer health care system is gaining traction. The reasoning goes that since communities already provide emergency ambulance services, Americans are therefore ready to accept complete socialization of our health care delivery system. Since local governments, through tax dollars, now manage 911 services, the country should welcome an extension of this service, with the government controlling all areas of our health care system.
Not only is this a policy leap too far, the argument extracts one small part of our health care system and extrapolates it to the entire system. The overwhelming majority of medical care is elective, including walk-in visits to the emergency room. Life-and-death ambulance runs account for a very small part of overall medical care and health care costs.
True emergencies, such as heart attacks and car crashes, are unpredictable. Socializing the cost of dealing with these patients is reasonable, just like tax-payer support of fire and police emergencies.
It is true that rural communities and insurance companies are now debating who should pay for high-cost emergency transports, for example with the use of aircraft. This is a valid and necessary debate and should be resolved on a local level.
People understand the difference between elective and emergency medical care. Forcing a government-controlled health care system on the country because Americans accept a socialized 911 system is illogical and unreasonable.
