As Britain’s National Health Service approached its birthday, Daniel Hannan, a popular (within his party) Conservative appeared on Fox news and bemoaned the NHS as a 60 year long mistake:
(Skip to 5.38 for the worst of it, not for the faint of temper)
In the USA, “socialized medicine” is the label applied by Conservatives to scare people away from any form of publicly funded healthcare system. (Note that I use the American spelling in this context!) I’m not going to try to convince people that this is, in fact, an excellent system, but I want them to just entertain the idea from the point of view of Society instead of Politics. I haven’t seen the film Sicko, but I imagine Michael Moore covers most of the traditional arguments.
Many Americans believe that if you introduce a “socialist” medical system that the quality of healthcare will die out. Marketisation is so integral to the American way of life that the only way to ensure someone is giving you their best is to make the system unreliable. In fact, this just ensures that those that can afford it get the best medical care and those that can’t, should work harder so they can afford it.
They oppose systems like Medicare because they believe it affects the care they’re given. The fear is that if you introduce something as simple as the government paying the doctor instead of him “earning” his own pay checks, all doctors will start leaving scissors inside your grandmother because they don’t care anymore; their salary is secure as it is paid for by the government.
The other fear is that they are convinced that they’ll have to wait a few hours for treatment like in Canada, and nobody ever wants to be Canada.
The market is so important in the USA that the very mention of the word socialist suggests that Stalin is ready to pop out of the grave and stamp on your daughter’s pet rabbit, then steal a portion of carrot to give to the poorer rabbit across the street. The term, in American discourse, is a relic of the Cold War, and it still sounds like is has nuclear weapons aimed at the declaration of independence.

Imagine for a moment that the country has been attacked by a terrorist network which has released a highly contagious biological weapon in a train station. The subway is used by both poor and rich people, but because the location is underground it should be easy to quarantine. The scenario can also be applied to natural pandemics like Swine Flu which can be passed on through the air.
Given that healthcare is marketised, the rich get a good service and the poor get a bad service, which works on any normal day. The problem is that disease does not discriminate by wealth, so both poor and rich people have equal chance of becoming ill. The result is that the though the rich are able to cure themselves, the poor cannot because they are not seen to, and the rich are still at risk. It is in the interests of the rich to make sure the poor are healthy.
With an NHS, everybody receives some sort of basic, minimum treatment to vaccinate against the disease, and thus the spread can be stopped. It also makes certain that the state has a co-ordinated, organised, tried-and-tested procedure for dealing with large-scale emergencies, instead of one doctor and his private practice doing the best he can.
This also prevents private practices from hoarding resources that are desperately needed elsewhere, as the Ministry of Health will be in charge of allocating equipment, and even human resources.
In Britain, the NHS issued a leaflet to every household in the country explaining what Swine Flu is and what to do about it, and Health Secretary Andy Burnham has now told doctors they can diagnose patients on the spot instead of lab-testing. I hope the USA will realise that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.
Also on another point, it isn't in the best interests of the rich for the poor to be ill because then they will not have anybody to work for them to generate their wealth.
It's also funny that in the whole interview, they didn't mention the French, Swedish or German healthcare systems which are better than the USA and are socialized. There is also the fact that up until 2000 Britain was ranked 18th by WHO for the best healthcare systems and America was ranked 37th (despite America spending 13.7% of GDP on healthcare and Britain paying 6%)
So what you are suggesting is that simply by describing health as an issue of national security, there will be some sort of extraordinary response beyond anything which would occur otherwise. That is a political strategy which security academics call 'securitisation' (not to be mistaken for the economic concept) – one which is used extraordinarily frequently.
Anyway, the reason I mention this is that one of the things they have found when this strategy is used for issues where a military response is inappropriate, is that there is still a tendency for inappropriate traditional national security tactics to be used. So, for example, you could find that the securitisation of Swine Flu would lead the US government to do things like deploying the National Guard to control people's movements, imposing unnecessarily strict quarantines or closing the borders, all things which are not actually the best way of dealing with the problem in the first place.
So, in my view, the dilemma is whether the mobilising benefits of securitising health issues outweigh the potential risks.
Well done on squeesing in clause four!
The point of hoarding in a market system is to ensure that there is a steady flow of goods and so they arent all used up in one second.
Yes, I'm sure a centralised system is better for pandemics,
that isn't somehow an argument that a centralised system is better.
If you substitute what you're saying for "the government pays for everyone's healthcare in the event of a pandemic" what argument do you have?
Thanks, Pete, for your interesting comment.
I had no idea my proposal was called "securitisation" so thanks for telling me about that.
I suppose, in fact, that rather than making health a National Security issue (which, really, it is, as a natural pandemic is only slightly different from a bioweapon) it might be an argument to help persuade naysayers to a type of NHS. Much in the same way that Energy Independence can be used to persuade anti-renewable energy people.