Friday, June 26, 2009
Government Medicine
I'm not a fan. An excerpt:
The government ruins everything it touches. Many high school graduates are functionally illiterate, even though per pupil funding is much higher now than in previous generations. Despite billions in subsidies over the years, Amtrak continues to lose money. The Post Office, though not an official arm of the government, enjoys a monopoly on first-class mail and is not renowned for its efficiency. And when a comedian wants to illustrate poor customer service, his reference case is the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Why in the world do so many people want to entrust this same government with our health care?
Comments:
Imagine the chaos is "free postage" were a government right.
People can visualize what that would look like before too long without the emotion of 'health care.'
People can visualize what that would look like before too long without the emotion of 'health care.'
They want gov healthcare because they need relief from the high costs of health care. We suffer from government control of healthcare today. We do not have a free market in healthcare. The AMA is essentially a Government Sponsored Entity, like Fannie and Freddie, and it has a monopoly on the supply of health care services. Through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) the gov sets the minimum for prices and ensures almost unlimited demand. If someone tried, they couldn't design a worse system than what we currently have.
My current medical insurance costs $14,000 per year. That's almost as much as I pay in taxes and I have a very healthy family. I don't know about the rest of you, maybe you're so wealthy that the cost doesn't matter to you. But I need some relief!
My current medical insurance costs $14,000 per year. That's almost as much as I pay in taxes and I have a very healthy family. I don't know about the rest of you, maybe you're so wealthy that the cost doesn't matter to you. But I need some relief!
It's important not to forget that Mises' theory of intervention (in short, that new interventions are concocted to overcome the mess from previous interventions) applies in the health care debate.
Many of the problems of the current US system, including high costs and poor coverage for the 'uninsured', are at least partially explained by rent seeking interventions from various medical - pharmaceutical and associated industry and professional groups.
In a sense Obama's proposed reforms are really reactionary not revolutionary. Instead of dethroning the rent seekers from the medical system, he is reinforcing and underwriting the whole mess with a huge infusion of taxpayers' money.
This is supposed to be vaguely egalitarian and social justice-y. Yeah. Sure.
Many of the problems of the current US system, including high costs and poor coverage for the 'uninsured', are at least partially explained by rent seeking interventions from various medical - pharmaceutical and associated industry and professional groups.
In a sense Obama's proposed reforms are really reactionary not revolutionary. Instead of dethroning the rent seekers from the medical system, he is reinforcing and underwriting the whole mess with a huge infusion of taxpayers' money.
This is supposed to be vaguely egalitarian and social justice-y. Yeah. Sure.
Bob,
I strongly disagree with your argument. I think you're not portraying the options fairly. This is a good read for those who are unsure about how things work up in Canada (Disclaimer: I'm Canadian).
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
Post a Comment
I strongly disagree with your argument. I think you're not portraying the options fairly. This is a good read for those who are unsure about how things work up in Canada (Disclaimer: I'm Canadian).
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]