Government-run health care is inherently less efficient -- because governments themselves are inherently less efficient.
If anything could finally put the lie to this old conservative canard, the disaster that is our health care system is Exhibit A.America spends about 15% of its GDP on health care. Most other industrialized countries (all of whom have some form of universal care) spend about 11-12%. According to the WHO, Canada spends a bit over 9% -- and most of the problems within their system come out of the fact that it's chronically underfunded compared to the international average.
Any system that has people spending more and getting less is, by definition, not efficient. And these efficiency leaks are, almost entirely, due to private greed. There is no logical way that a private system can pay eight-figure CEO compensation packages, turn a handsome a profit for shareholders, and still be "efficient." In fact, in order to deliver those profits and salaries, the American system has built up a vast, Kafkaesque administrative machinery of approval, denial, and fraud management, which inflates the US system's administrative costs to well over double that seen in other countries -- or even in our own public systems, including Medicare and the VA system.
After years of failed socialism, after years of economic theory consistently debunking collectivism, after seeing the wonderful job government does in postal service, departments of motor vehicles, and the Walter Reed military hospital, you'd think we wouldn't have to put up with this stuff anymore. But you'd be wrong. Government creating inefficiency in the market isn't a "conservative canard"; it's a time-tested truism. And it's so obvious! Think about it: you lower the cost to zero--not the price tag, mind you, but the cost--and quantity demanded skyrockets far beyond the market equilibrium. That creates shortages, something we invariably see in states using nationalized health care, including Canada, Britain...and Japan. Those who believe they can take a vacation from the laws of economics are likely to take a vacation from prosperity. There's a reason why massive numbers of economists oppose socialized health care vehemently. (By the way, whenever someone starts talking about "private greed" and "delivering care, not profits," you can be sure that she has no clue what she's talking about where economics is concerned. Just thought I'd mention it.) Should we choose a system that relies on the beneficence of government employees rather than on the strictures of a competitive market in which profit depends on delivering satisfactory service? Both practice (history) and theory (read up; try Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams) tell us that the latter is preferable, and not just by a little bit.
Cluelessness Alert: This woman asserts that fraud will vanish if we get the government involved.
Really, collectivism IS what's wrong with American health care right now. Government needs to get out of the job of regulating health care--no one should be required to ensure employees, people should be able to buy health insurance from other states, etc.--and market forces should be allowed to deliver health care in the most efficient possible way.
Besides, no one who advocates a program which everyone has to join or else go to jail should be able to talk about liberty, like this woman does. That is an affront to real liberty.
In conclusion: if you want socialized health care, go to Canada, the U.K., or France. Don't drag me into it. I'm begging you.
Posts
