Building 18: your next health care stop?

This piece for Liberty Features Syndicate originally cleared August 31st.

The Democrats’ most recent drive for health care reform many have dubbed “Obamacare” centers on the “public option”, a step many leftists feel is necessary to soften America’s resistance to their overall goal of nationalized health care similar to that found in Canada or Great Britain.

While the on-again, off-again prospect of government-backed competition to private insurance defines progress of this rendition of reform to those on the Left, arguably that desired end result of socialized health care is already here - embodied in the Veterans Administration. In return for their military service, the men and women who served in our armed forces have the option of a lifetime of care in facilities open primarily to them and, aside from a trifling co-pay based on income, essentially paid for by the federal government.

In most cases the VA provides our veterans the top-notch care they need. But the VA’s resources have strained more and more from a huge influx of casualties from war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the VA bureaucracy has been slow to catch up, at times leaving veterans in worse shape than they were upon entering the system.

The poster child for VA incompetence was revealed back in 2007 when a Washington Post investigation detailed horrific conditions at Building 18 of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center; a litany which included black mold, rodent infestation, and outright neglect by overworked staff. While Democrats took glee in blaming the Bush Administration for the conditions and used Building 18 as another example of a war the Left considered wrong, the critics failed to bring up an obvious point – government-run health care was shown once again to be inferior to that being performed by the private sector. Health facilities in private hands would quickly be shut down if left in that dilapidated condition for any length of time.

However, Building 18 was not intended as part of the Walter Reed campus when built. It was originally a motor lodge but when Walter Reed needed additional space in the late 1980’s the building was purchased and converted for usage as an outpatient recovery facility. The demand for care at Walter Reed increased significantly once hostilities in the Middle East began and government inertia proved to be the largest obstacle to recovery for those scarred by battle.

Other complaints about VA treatment usually stem from a lack of accessibility, particularly for veterans who choose to live in more rural areas. Many times they are forced to drive hours for “free” treatment, bypassing several facilities which could have provided the same service but aren’t connected to the Veterans Administration.

The VA example brings up a point usually lost in the debate over providing cradle-to-grave health care for all: are facilities and manpower going to be available for all those who desire it? We already face a shortage of those wishing to go into health care professions and that lack of manpower promises to become more acute as America’s population – including veterans already in the VA system - becomes grayer and sicker.

If health care truly needs reform, perhaps the best route to proving the worth of government solutions would be to concentrate reform on the systems already in place – certainly there’s a lot in Medicaid, Medicare, and health care through the Veterans Administration which could stand change well before subjecting the rest of us to the inertia and red tape bureaucracy always brings.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer.