http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_ … ama_health

Universal healthcare: it sounds like a great idea, healthcare for everyone right? Who doesn’t want that? While it sounds plausible, and may in the short-term fix many financial woes of those suffering from outrageous insurance rates and unbearable co-pays, the long-term problem is that healthcare quality will suffer dramatically. And to be honest, despite the high cost of healthcare, we have one of the best quality systems in the world. If we follow the example of those European nations who have moved to universal healthcare though, getting in for cancer treatment will take six weeks. Literally. I know this because a friend of mine had a mother in Sweden who was diagnosed with cancer but could not get in to see the doctor for six weeks because of bureaucratic red tape as a result of the universalization of healthcare. She died shortly thereafter.

Obama’s (and Edwards) solution to healthcare is to excessively tax the rich and give to the poor to pay for this. In most classic economics classes (except for those redefining the meaning of these terms like at Harvard, Yale, and GWU), taking from the rich and giving to the poor is called socialism. It is a move away from capitalism. And I guarantee healthcare will never be the same if this ever becomes policy. This is what I mean when I say Obama is socialistic. And when I say that I guess you could say what I mean is neo-socialism, not old time Soviet Socialism. Instead of this new kind of socialism being applied to solve our healthcare woes, we need policies that will address the current healthcare market and fix those problems instead of scrapping it altogether.