For those who support a “Medicare for all” approach, consider what happens when you have a single entity making all the health care decisions:
The 75% rule is one example of the kinds of decisions that a government sponsored universal healthcare system will make. When one payer (government or non-government) develops a monopoly, their decisions can single-handedly limit consumer choice, prevent physicians from exercising clinical judgment, and decrease quality and safety of care. What will Americans say when the decision to fund organ transplants for people over 65, for example, is denied across the board?
Related posts:
- Medicare and single-payer
- Free doctors, save Medicare
- Karl Rove responds to Hillary’s health plan
- How specialists view universal health care
- The difficulty with radical health reform
- Quality and safety are not the same thing
- Health care costs 101
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 8 comments }
If it is my tax dollars paying for it, “AMEN!”
Man, you love quoting hacks (like the Fraser Institute when you talk about Canada). Why don’t you do a little investigation to see whether anyone gives this man credence (hint, not really). If you want to quote hack economists on healthcare then you would be better off with Arnold Kling. At least he has some people who still respect him.
Silly blogger. There’s nothing preventing people from buying private insurance, or paying out of pocket to substitute the things the government won’t pay for.
Um, yes, there is. Paying once in taxes, and again for private insurance, is a serious expense to most middle class Americans. What you propose is much like the injustice of being allowed to send your child to a private school, so long as you pay to support the public schools too. It’s not cheap, and few can afford it.
At some threshold a single payer controls such a large chunk of the market that for all intents and purposes it operates as a “true single payer” system.
There are few “true single payer” systems in the world – in most places there is private insurance to be had. But whether you’re dealing with “true single payer” or socialized medicine or nearly single payer as spelled out in many Medicare-For-All plans they all suffer the same. They all, for all intents and purposes, have global budgets, which with the whims of bureaucracy determine limits on health care access. That is the common argument against all of these systems.
As Anon 9:02 said an increased tax burden is a prohibition for many to private health care spending. So, there is no argument that if people truly wanted more access they would simply go out and pay for it. These systems are not examples of free markets. The government funding 75% of health care expenses suffers from the same problems as if we had a socialized system such as the NHS over here. So when people start shouting “socialized medicine” whenever some liberal politician mentions Medicare-For-All, take a minute before you shout them down as being ‘inaccurate.’ Semantically, they may be confusing terms but both suffer from the EXACT same faults and will have the EXACT same negative consequences.
Should a 65 year old be allowed to have an organ transplant when the nation can’t find resources to pay for pre-natal care or a young boy’s leukemia treatment? It must feel good to pontificate your concerns about ‘freedom of choice’ when you are among the privileged that has insurance. What about the 1/3 of children without insurance, and the 40+ million adults without insurance?
Let’s get real…we have limited resources as a nation to spend on insurance. Employers/employees are going bankrupt just trying to cover premiums. If current trends continue, by 2020 health insurance premiume will equal the average gross income ($100K) in the US.
You think things are good right now because you folks a ‘members of the club’. You are allowed into the inner circles of our healthcare system. What do you propose for those without such means??
Get a job.
The 65 year old should be allowed to an organ transplant if he is willing to pay for it, or has payed the premium into an insurance scheme to cover it. That is freedom. Envy is a poor basis for policy. Ask the people who used to live under communism.
The fact that someone else doesn’t get what they need or want should in no way limit his freedom.
Some people can’t afford food and are hungry–that is no reason why I should do so.
“The nation” can find resources to pay for pre-natal care and leukemia treatment the same places it finds resources to pay for courts, prisons, and armies–the pockets of the people who produce wealth. It is just a matter of political will, and a practical matter of how far you can rummage in another man’s pocket before he decides to stop putting money in it.
All women have access to free prenatal care in my state in government run clinics. Over half of the children are eligible for medicaid (many aren’t signed up), there is a public hospital in every sizable city. I have never heard of a child with leukemia not having access to treatment. Ever heard of St. Jude?
Comments on this entry are closed.