We all know what socialized medicine is for better or for worse, so there is really no need to debate the value of socialized medicine because we can just look next door to Canada or England to see the results and decide whether we want that or not (I personally do not). I would like to debate the value of a free market system:

Despite my free market tendencies, I have trouble seeing how the market is going to work in this case. The patient or the consumer of healthcare is subject to extreme assymetric information making it very difficult for him to distinguish the products of competitors. Furthermore, the patient cannot exactly choose not to buy a product if the cost is death. The seller (the doctor) has all the information and basically tells the patient what to buy. Furthermore, we as doctors, are also trained to advocate for our patients, which seems to me in direct ethical conflict with a market system in which we are a seller. Furthermore, we are paid by the procedure which incentivizes us not to provide preventative care (we as medicals students actually have the ideals of preventative care pounded into us daily, but economic incentives are like laws of physics as all conservatives know, and people respond to incentives just as rocks respond to the laws of physics). In the same vein with this disincentive idea: insurance companies have an incentive not to provide care: they make profit by signing healthy people with insurance and then dumping them when they get sick. Every patient that needs treatment costs the insurance company money, hence it is the economic incentive of the insurance company not to provide care (profit motive, another law of economics that cannot be defied). Thus every incentive is this market based care system seems to push toward sicker patients. This is called market failure.

Fundamentally, the market is driven by supply and demand. There is a limited supply of healthcare, and an unlimited demand for it. the market thus rations (as it does with every product) by price. The question is, is it beneficial to our society to ration by price for a commodity such as healthcare? The capitalist in me scream “Of course! that is how we ration all other products! The commies are idiots and history has proven them so!” The patriot in me says “is that going to result in a stronger America?”

And then, the military historian in me asks: “How is healthcare different from national defense? The soldiers of our nation protect the welfare and productivity of our nation from foreign powers that would seek to weaken it. They are servants of the state and we would never dream of outsourcing that to a private company because national defense is a public good subject to free riding. The market would not be able to provide for national defense. Are not doctors simply soldiers protecting the welfare and productivity of our citizens from foreign microbes and diseases? how is that different from national defense?”

And then the economist in me asks “Is the health of a nation not a public good, and does not the privatization of such a commodity result in extreme negative externalities?” (negative externalities are costs which are not reflected in the market price of a good. aka cigarette prices do not reflect the true cost of cigarettes on society. In this case, rationing healthcare by price costs the nation hugely in lost productivity in those who cannot afford healthcare.)

I think the military historian and the economist in me have very good points. However, the profit seeking doctor in me begs for some more knowledgable economist or conservative out there to poke holes in my arguments so that I can earn more money in a private healthcare system. So please, someone tell me how the market is going to work.

-Parthicus

Just look at a government office for the latest technologies, the post office is just getting colored monitors.

Obama’s planners for the future may be using Win 2000.

The government is incapable of doing much of anything with efficiency, accuracy or right.

Just name one federal government program, ever in our history, that ran on budget, on time and which meets everyone’s need. Most politicians are lawyers, not doctors, I want medical professioanls running a clinic, not lawyers.

Only universal insurance will solve that problem – but it requires a universal mandate to pay for it. Otherwise, young healthy people will free-ride with no insurance until they get old, then will pick up the benefits from a system they never paid into.

the unemployed can get medicaid.

This is not always true – and millions more are working full time but still unable to afford the cost of insurance. Insurance company profits should not be part of our healthcare expenses. All of our peer countries have universal coverage – our citizens are paying the price for our antiquated system.

Peace.

DS

Easy, and I suspect it was less expensive too — at least, it took less from my “cafeteria” benefits than anything other than Kaiser.

David S–the unemployed can get medicaid. If not, then what makes you think another government “insurance” plan would be any better?

Why not give an employee $300 to $600 a month (in a health savings account), exempt from payroll tax, and let the employee seek out private insurance just as they do now for their car or house? States could mandate coverage, just as in auto insurance and create minimum coverage standards, as well.

In many cases this would be lower cost to the employer and the employee would have total control on what is or what is not covered. Also this would stop the 10% or more annual increases in cost.

Those employees who take wellness seriously would come out ahead, those who don’t can only blame themselves.