chuck wrote:
o/t but would this healthcare idea be good or bad Republican doctrine? If a basketcase state like, say, Michigan had “universal healthcare,” that would lift the burden off businesses, particularly the car companies who could then build and sell their cars more cheaply. In fact, wouldn’t such a state have a competitive advantage against the other states when it came to attracting new businesses? If this thinking is sound, and I;m no economist, the last thing we should want would be a national healthcare system. Thoughts?
Chuck,
You’re making the usual error of imagining that a state-run health care is “free,” and creates no burden on citizens or businesses. If the state provides the same level of coverage, it will have the same costs — plus administrative and taxation costs, since states are bureaucratic and it costs money to collect taxes. So the net effect will be pretty much the same.
The correct solution must address three separate problems:
1) The medical insurance and medical provider market is the most heavily regulated market in America, and a huge percentage of the high costs are due to government interference. It needs to be almost completely deregulated.
2) Malpractice claims need to be capped, and penalties need to be assessed for frivolous lawsuits.
3) The AMA needs to be removed from the doctor licensing business; they’ve been artificially restricting the supply of doctors for decades.
