Yeah, I know it's been a long time. I've been a busy guy.
Some interesting reading about nationalized (socialized) health care...
From the Foundation for Economic Education:
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5730
From Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP):
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/key_features_of_singlepayer.php
From the Pacific Research Institute:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/clip/2005/clip-03-20-05.html
I have to say that I absolutely disagree with everything on the PNHP page. The FEE article does a pretty good job of giving a point-by-point rebuttal, so I won't go on a rant at this moment. ;-)
What kills me about this is that socialized health care has never succeeded in providing timely, effective treatment to all patients. Since this is what it's apparently supposed to provide, it amazes me that people still think it's the right answer even though it's been proven ineffective (and often detrimental to overall health) time and time again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"What kills me about this is that socialized health care has never succeeded in providing timely, effective treatment to all patients."
It's this same kind of utopian criticism of markets that is used to justify socialized health care! No care could possibly succeed in providing timely, effective treatment to all patients. The question is, which is better?
I'll say this much: one of the two extremes, socialized versus free market medicine, has a serious problem recruiting and keeping doctors. The other is seen as unfair. So you have fair but inadequate care versus an unfair abundance of care.
"It's this same kind of utopian criticism of markets that is used to justify socialized health care!"
True...but my point was that this is the much-touted goal of socialized health care. The fact that it's unachievable is lost on its proponents.
The media machine is blaring about the travesty that 45 million Americans are without health insurance. Never is there any analysis of why those 45 million Americans (or all the rest of us) need health insurance in the first place. Never any mention of how the ubiquity of health insurance itself contributes to rising health costs, nor of the effects of regulation on costs. Once again it's a case of treating the symptoms, with no desire of addressing the root of the problem.
"The media machine is blaring about the travesty that 45 million Americans are without health insurance. Never is there any analysis of why those 45 million Americans (or all the rest of us) need health insurance in the first place. Never any mention of how the ubiquity of health insurance itself contributes to rising health costs, nor of the effects of regulation on costs."
All that's important, but no reason to hold socialized medicine to an unrealistic standard as well. Of course it wouldn't really cover everybody adequately, and anyone who thinks so isn't really thinking.
As for health insurance, the main problem is that it rarely resembles anything I'd call insurance. Insurance for your home, car, or life is insurance against unlikely, high-cost events. It's insurance against what in the health industry is called "catastrophic" coverage. But for a number of tax/regulatory reasons, since World War II health insurance has been ridiculously comprehensive. It covers checkups for healthy people, antibiotics for sinus infections, even erection-enhancing pills. It's akin to a hypothetical auto insurance plan that covers new tires, oil changes, and even fuel purchases (with a co-pay... maybe). Or home insurance that covers new paint, water heaters, and clogged drains. How high would the premiums be for that kind of auto or home insurance? And if people didn't pay for those kinds of things themselves directly, would you expect costs to increase? The answer should be a resounding "duh!"
True health insurance would cover virtually nothing short of surgury or an extended hospital stay. It would be a lot cheaper, though... a LOT cheaper, and real (inflation-adjusted) health care costs (drugs, MRIs, whatever) would surely fall as a result. If you don't believe me, then look at health care costs that insurance companies tend not to cover; laser eye surgury comes to mind.
I think part of the argument for socialized medicine or something like it is the fact that many people that don't have insurance or adequate coverage wait until they are very ill and end up in county hospital or non-profit hospital emergency rooms without having had any kind of preventive check-ups because they could not afford them or could not afford the medications to prevent problems with hypertension, diabetes and other preventable/controllable illnesses. Of course, there are some people that will never take care of themselves even with insurance. This country already does have a fair amount of subsidized insurance programs already - Medicare, Medicaid, some state programs and programs specific to certain illnesses HIV/AIDS, dialysis programs, cancer programs, addictions, etc. For most of these programs, the wait is not too long.
I agree that the failure to seek preventative care, whether as a result of the inability to afford it or merely lack of due diligence on the part of the individual may contribute somewhat to general support for socialized care. Much like changing the oil in your car or performing preventative maintenance on your house can save a great deal of money on costly repairs later, preventative care can help prevent costly surgical or medicative procedures. Health insurance companies could perhaps deal with this by specifying that subscribers must undergo regular check-ups as a condition of their coverage.
However, it's not possible (or morally right) to force people to take care of themselves, especially at the expense of responsible individuals who do choose to maintain their own health. Here again we come upon the topic of personal responsibility, and whether it is right for the responsible among us to bear the costs of the poor choices made by irresponsible individuals.
As to not being able to afford preventative care or medication, getting government out of the health care industry altogether would go a long way toward making those things more affordable and much more accessible. But that's another topic for discussion. ;-)
Post a Comment