“Localizing Health Care”
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — Pace Mr. Lindsay, no fan of nationalized health care am I. However, I think that I find myself in the majority in suggesting that something needs to be done, and platitudinous defenses of the “free market” do little for me when the system is patently not free and most of the plans, at least as I understand them, seem to be to be terribly flawed (as the linked-to-below essay will elucidate).
Over at Front Porch Republic, John Médaille offers what may be the best, most honest, and most thorough disquisition on this great quagmire that I have encountered. In good Distributist fashion, he calls out the failings of both the overtly socialistic and the “free-market” aspects of our current system, while admitting to those market aspects that do work. The plan is not perfect — for the better, I’d say; anything that is “perfect” is probably going to bring about our doom —, and though nothing about it strikes me as being unConstitutional prima facie, I have no doubt that some part of Médaille’s vision or another may require mending to fit within Constitutional frameworks (presuming that those really matter).
He concludes his essay thusly:
The Future of Reform
The current system, consuming 16% of GDP—and rising—is simply unsustainable. Moreover, the great burden it places on our businesses makes us uncompetitive in world markets, as we have discovered in the auto industry. The status quo is no longer an option. But here we come to a great conundrum: either we return to the chaos and quackery of the 19th century, or we move to a European-style socialist system, in which medical services are allocated by the state. European socialism has resulted in better over-all health statistics and at least a perception of fairness in allocating services. However, socialism converts everybody from being a citizen to being a ward of the state. Nevertheless, if one has a life-threatening illness or injury, one might prefer to be a live ward rather than a dead citizen.
But there is a great problem in establishing universal health care, whether by socialism or any other method. Namely, there will be an additional 50 million persons in the system who are currently uninsured, plus the untold millions who are under-insured. This is a tremendous increase in demand with no corresponding increase in supply. Either there will be huge price increases, or the government will be forced to severely ration health care. Both courses of action are untenable, and the system will collapse before it gets started. Without increasing the supply, you cannot control the costs, and this is impossible without curtailing or eliminating the monopolies and oligarchies that currently restrict supply.
But if costs are brought under control by market forces, and the institutional problem is solved by the guild, then the problem of universal care will turn out to be a relatively easy one; providing medical insurance to all will be no more difficult than providing car or home insurance. No system of reform currently on the table addresses either the supply or the institutional problems. Instead, they all exacerbate both problems. It will become painfully clear that as we move towards universal care, we will increase the demand but leave the supply unchanged. This will result in a disaster.
I firmly believe that only a distributist analysis can give us the tools to look the problem squarely in the eye and provide rational solutions.
Italicized emphasis in the original; underlined mine. — NPO
Filed under: politics
Thank you for posting this -
“The plan is not perfect — for the better, I’d say; anything that is “perfect” is probably going to bring about our doom —, and though nothing about it strikes me as being unConstitutional prima facie, I have no doubt that some part of Médaille’s vision or another may require mending to fit within Constitutional frameworks (presuming that those really matter).”
With all the attention this issue is getting and the efforts by the White House to destroy our magnificent healthcare system, here are some points to consider. (Note this was written in March.)
Democrats Aim for Nationalized Healthcare, Again
With the economy in recessional throws the likes not seen for two decades, more Americans find themselves worrying about essential services, one of them being healthcare. While crushing costs mount on more families, corollary pressure mounts on those who defend our still largely free market system. Recognizing the lure that “free” care has on citizens in times of uncertainty eager Democrats reigniting the political war whose last casualty was Hillarycare in ’94. The latest legal changes to our public health system have been stealthily introduced through little publicized provisions in the stimulus bill. In light of such tactics, it is important Americans looking to protect our most basic rights understand the critical differences between government run healthcare and private healthcare. But first, a little history on the topic…
The American Left has sought nationalized (socialized, “universal”) healthcare in one form or another since the time of FDR, who authorized the creation of the Social Security Administration, in many ways its ideological predecessor. Harry Truman sought nationalization in the form of a social security expansion bill that never passed, but Lyndon Johnson picked up the flag for a big victory in the 60’s, instituting Medicare and Medicaid. Three decades later the Clintons met defeat. According to Senator Tom Daschle, President Obama’s initial nominee to head Health and Human Services, this defeat was due chiefly to a drawn-out process which allowed opponents to rally popular support. Well don’t blink this time around! Government dole has already expanded under the guise of crisis relief.
In particular, two provisions in the recent stimulus bill work simultaneously to raise the State Children’s Health Insurance Program maximum income to $87,000 annually (for a family of four) and to extend 100% Medicaid coverage for unemployed families, with no maximum asset limitations. Funding for these programmatic extensions is provided by the Federal government. This new set of laws serves to, in effect, move people who are currently privately insured (or are likely to be in the near future) into a federal system. In perilous economic times, such relief seems to make a popular political issue, appealing to the electorate and politicians. If this is the case, one might ask in all earnest: why would it to little more than a footnote in an 1,100 page bill, too massive for public scrutiny? To answer this question it helps to illuminate some of the looming dangers of nationalized healthcare.
First, consider some economics of the healthcare industry. The debate in many ways is about how best to lower costs to expand access: free-marketers (often Republicans, though not always) wish to increase supply, while Democrats wish to decrease (i.e. ration) demand. This is because, for better or worse, healthcare is an expensive undertaking: practicing medicine requires protracted education, followed by years of training; debts incurred through medical school must be repaid, putting a necessary premium on the price of care; investment costs for the latest treatment technology can run into the millions; the cost of prescription drugs must recoup all research and development costs and provide incentive for further discovery. In short, healthcare is a resource intensive industry from a human capital and technological standpoint, and is so ultimately because we choose to spend money on promoting our own health.
Next to consider is who, or what, would have ultimate decision making power – decisions of life and death – under a nationalized healthcare system. This power currently resides with the patient, who is free to seek any care he should like, provided he has the means to pay. It would be shifted to government, which could refuse treatment. There would likely be no legal recourse for a bad, even unjust decision, as government could pass legislation prohibiting lawsuits from originating against itself. The much-maligned private health insurance system looks more attractive in the face of government monopoly. I leave it to the reader to judge the likelihood of high-ranking government officials receiving priority care over Joe and Jane Public.
Finally, the most dehumanizing aspect of nationalized healthcare arises from the disruption government necessary rationing inflicts on the doctor-patient relationship. It is important to recall that only under a budgeted healthcare system can there be cost overruns. (Under our current system, this scenario would be described as high demand, and would serve to attract new industry employees.) From a budgetary standpoint, one partial solution to cost overruns is reducing costs; in this case, doctors must refuse treatment they otherwise may have considered. The well-being of the patient is subjugated to the needs of the bureau, which orders from atop the crude application state-crafted of ratios that arbitrarily determine the societal trade-offs between two treatments. Much like other government agencies, with nationalized healthcare the doctor thus becomes a highly educated bureaucrat and the patient a mere statistic.
Democrats seem intent on taking the low road to nationalizing the world’s preeminent healthcare system. Before cheerleading these incremental steps, all citizens should be mindful of the deleterious effects of nationalization on their own health. It would do them well.
I’m not aware of too many “market-oriented” healthcare reforms in the world recently which have resulted in increased supply and decreased prices.
And no, the elite of the Democratic Party has not been interested in nationalised healthcare for a long, long time.
Some of you live in a fantasy world whereby all Democratic Party pols are socialist bureaucrats who only dream of making a lame form of the USSR. In reality, these are elected politicians who take their funding heavily from the insurance “industries”, from the financial services parasites, law firms, etc.
Your scapegoat of the 90-IQ govt bureaucrat is not all that powerful.
How’s my scapegoat of a 90-IQ poster named Thomas?
I should say, however, that yeah, it’s about time we get out the pitchforks. Especially considering this
http://www.marketwatch.com/story//us-job-losses-accelerate-to-263000-in-september-2009-10-02
and this
http://wallstreetpit.com/10824-jim-rogers-says-us-government-lies-true-inflation-6-7
What’s next, William, “yo’ mamma” jokes? No wonder you think the Muslims and socialists are after you.
Grow up.
Yo mamma!
If Obama really wanted health reform he would allow the sale of insurance across state lines. America doesn’t need another broken system. Goverment knows nothing about running health care or medicare would not be in the shape it is in