What Is the Purpose of Socialized Medicine?
Socialized medicine was traditionally defended or opposed on the grounds that the government was making health care more abundant by spending more money on it. That is no longer the case. The chart at Crooked Timber makes it clear that the amount the government spends on health care is nearly constant. The more privatized systems are those where private citizens can spend their own resources as well.
In other words, a single-payer health plan is one designed to prevent you from spending your money the way you see fit. It might keep people away from quacks for a little while … until the quacks infiltrate the government.
One possible objection is that the increased private spending in the United States does not appear to improve outcomes. An objection to this objection is that the more open borders of the United States has the effect of improving health care for any given individual while decreasing the average health of Americans. It's also unclear how long the discrepancy will last.
1 Comments:
Socialized medicine was traditionally defended or opposed on the grounds that the government was making health care more abundant by spending more money on it.
Not quite. Socialized medicine is defended on the grounds that the government was making health care available for everyone regardless of cost.
The chart at Crooked Timber makes it clear that the amount the government spends on health care is nearly constant.
I don't think it makes that point at all, but it does show that health care costs considerably more in the U.S., when compared to what we produce as an economy.
In other words, a single-payer health plan is one designed to prevent you from spending your money the way you see fit.
This isn't true at all. If you want to pay a doctor to do something, you still can. You just end up rarely having to.
It might keep people away from quacks for a little while … until the quacks infiltrate the government.
HAHAHAHA. There are so many ridiculous implications in that statement, I'm having trouble picking out just one. Right now, with our current system, where insurance companies can clean up any mess by just raising their rates and therefore boosting their margins, there is no incentive at all to eliminate the bad doctors. Malpractice suits are excuses for lawyers and insurers to get richer. What incentive do they have to stop that? The more quacks, the better!
One possible objection is that the increased private spending in the United States does not appear to improve outcomes.
You don't say! So we should stick with a system that allows us to pay extra for the same quality, so long as we get to spend our money however we want! Capitalism rocks!!
Post a Comment
<< Home