An Example of Government Healthcare
There has been a lot of talk lately about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. Obviously, our veterans deserve a lot better care than that facility was trying to provide.
Now, I haven't read every single article about this, but I have yet to see one mention of the fact that Walter Reed is run by the government. It is the government healthcare that so many people (socialists) are demanding.
Do you think that private hospitals and doctor offices would stay in business if their facilities were in such terrible shape? Of course not. Patients would choose to go to another hospital. The free market is a necessary mechanism for all segments of our economy. Competition raises standards and lowers prices.
Let's look at our neighbor to the north and see how they're doing. The efforts of Canada's socialized medicine bureaucrats has made the average wait time for MRI and CT orders of magnitude longer than free market alternatives in other countries. (I can't verify the exact number, but I believe I read somewhere in the news that the average wait is eight months.) Read this heartwrenching article about a mother that says her four-year-old son is at risk due to these disgraceful red-tape waiting periods. As you could logically conclude, the government wait lists for elective surgery is much longer than that.
Close your eyes and think about your last visit to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. How did you feel about your experience? Were you satisfied with the government service you received? Keep that in your mind's eye when folks are talking about bringing even more government regulation to our healthcare system.
This article is permanently linked here.
4 comments
4 Comments:
Mike but I hear "Although the United States spends fifty percent more on each cancer patient, Canada fares slightly better statistically in the overall figures." Wikipedia - "Canadian and American health care systems compared"
And is private health insurance really a free market? Isn't this big insurance company bullying healthcare providers into lowering their prices so that their huge customer base won't avoid those particular doctors?
And I actually felt well served by the Ohio BMV now that they have a website.
Johnny H, very good points. I'm sure you're surprised, but I have a rebuttal that answers your concerns.
Rest assured, the problems (for the most part) are caused by government regulation already. The solution certainly isn't more government red-tape. Walter Reed is the product of having them get more involved.
Don't get me wrong. I think our healthcare system is *severely* screwed up. As you pointed out, the costs are astronomical. Also as you pointed out, private insurance companies definitely share in the blame.
Since you brought it up, we'll just look into that can of worms for now and not the original intent for this post, which is how government directly screws things up. (For as you will see, I think government indirectly allows health insurance companies to screw up the system)
OK, Here it is:
Medical care in this country is so expensive because people expect it.
They think it's free. Since almost everyone gets insurance from their employer or the government (Medicare/Medicaid/welfare) nobody shops around for what they are paying. We don't participate in the free market and therefore we get screwed.
What do most people do when they get auto insurance? They say, "I need this much on collision, I don't need rental car, I need roadside assistance, etc, etc" and call 10 companies and see what's best. Only a very, very small number of people go through that process with health insurance and because of it, the doctors realize they will only get paid by playing ball with whatever the insurance companies will pay them.
We'd be a lot better off if people stopped thinking they were owed health insurance and instead they had to treat it like any other type of insurance or service. Why should a 50 year old single woman at my work pay for huge insurance coverage that covers pregnancy? Why should people pay for alcohol/drug treatment if they don't think there's a need in their family? No matter what people would have us believe, we are paying for that insurance. It's not a "benefit". It's part of our salary. We just don't see it or have much of a choice in spending it.
The worst part of this is that the health insurance companies don't have to answer to anyone. They know there's nothing I can do when I have a couple brats that need their tonsils out, my company only offers Aetna, and I can't afford to pay for it myself (since Aenta sets the prices at my hospital). What am I gonna do? I'm stuck.
So, I think a stronger free market stance on individuals obtaining their own health insurance would be one of the best things to happen to our system. One of the worst things that would happen is making us fall even faster into the current downward spiral by continuing to make poeple think that they are magically owed health insurance by the government.
(I'm very curious to hear what Andy would say on the subject because I know he's had to look into this with his contractor status at work and actually shopped around.)
As for the BMV comment, why did you choose to do your business online? Do you prefer that to standing in very long lines, filling out duplicate paperwork, and dealing with very surly government employees? I think the fact that you choose to do that stuff online kinda proves my point.
However, if the government can figure out a way to treat my disease online, then I might reconsider protesting their involvement.
The free market and deregulation isn't always the answer. Just as it encourages higher quality, it also offers incentives for cutting corners in order to cut costs.
One of the main problems with Walter Reed was that the maintenance was outsourced to private contractors. That's not to say that the government isn't at fault, but they aren't wholly at fault for a private contractor who has done a lousy job.
I'm with you that national healthcare is both impractical and inefficient, but don't go all Milton Friedman on me. Laissez-faire economics sound good in theory, but not so much in practice.
The free market and deregulation isn't always the answer.
I agree and always have. There are certain tasks that only government can do and they do them well - national defense, coining money, enacting taxes, etc. These are very necessary things that the private sector can't do. I never claim that the free market can do everything. However, when government control over a segment of our economy is screwing things up, we need to be able to recognize it.
As to the free market making people cut corners and your citing of private contractors as the fault for Walter Reed... the problem with enormous government isn't really the workers. It's the management. a gazillion-trillion dollar budget makes it so you can't see the trees in the forest. (Ask any government employee about the overhead required for administration and how efficient they are. Then ask someone at a private company.)
If the private contractors were doing a shitty job, why didn't the government (the managers) fire them and get better ones? That is exactly what the free market is supposed to protect against. If it wasn't only mis-management at fault, then I have a feeling those private contractors have some kind of government or union no-bid contract or something (which also certainly isn't a capitalist notion).
I have to admit I'm always surprised to hear people say things like capitalism and the free market "aound good in theory, but not so much in practice". That's how I feel about communism... and history has proven it. How is capitalism not good in practice? I don't get it.
(See my next post.)
Post a Comment
<< Home