Posted by
Andrews on Monday, August 17, 2009 3:22:11 PM
How many times have you heard those supporting some sort of nationalized health care argue that health care is the most important thing ever? That it is so vital that everyone must have free access? That it is so important that we can't entrust it to the market, but must view it as a right?
Well, then, if it is so important, why do they tell us spending 17% of GDP on it is "too much"? If something is so crucial, then why is 1/7 of our income "too much"? Does that make sense to anyone? If I were to say I loved my wife more than anything, would do anything for her, but that there was no way I would give her 1/7 of my paycheck, would you think I was serious in my statements?
My other question is this. If the government is going to provide health care to even more people, then aren't they going to spend
EVEN MORE? If our current expenditures are too much, then how will it be possible to provide even more care to more people?
Oh, I know the story, somehow the government will cut costs, making us all better provided at a lower cost. But does anyone believe that? Think about the private sector, where your income depends on cutting costs, where the bottom line is entirely based on income and costs. Then think of the government, where salaries are based entirely on seniority, position is based not on cutting costs but on avoiding making waves while serving time. Think about the pressures on the two systems. On the private system, pressures to cut costs and increase revenue above all else. For the state, to avoid causing any political waves, while appeasing the constituencies of any and all politicians. Finally, think about this one final fact. The private sector is spending their own money while the government is spending from the bottomless well of tax dollars.
Do you really believe the private sector will be more wasteful than the government?
No, if they are going to cut costs, reduce our spending, the way that will happen is clearly through cutting services. As Obama already hinted when he unthinkingly said we expected too much medicine. I know they are now denying this, but the truth is, the only way they can provide broader care at lower costs is through rationing or other restrictions.
Which kind of makes a lie of their claims that health care is "the most important thing". If it is so essential, then why would we want to spend just as much to get less of it?
POSTSCRIPT
I discussed the various pressures on private versus public sector ventures in "
Bureaucratic Management", "
When Help Hurts II", "
Government Efficiency II", "
Cutting "Costs"", "
Two Examples of "Inefficiency" in Capitalism" and "
Killing the Railroads". I also saw an interesting
article in the WSJ on the same topic. I disagree with some of what is written there, as it indulges in too many "central planning" assumptions, but it still is a good antidote to the present assumption that health care spending is somehow "out of control". A topic I also addressed in "
High Cost of Medical Care", "
Government Efficiency", "" and "
Misunderstanding Profits". Finally, I addressed a number of different problems with socialized medicine in "
Clarification of My Argument for a Free Market in Medicine", "
A Passing Thought on ObamaCare","
The Devil is in the Definitions (And Assumptions)" and "
Big Government Creates New Problems".