And that’s pretty much it:
Although government-dominated systems may not improve care, they will relieve anxiety about access, ease financial pressure, and assuage societal guilt. When something is “free, “ it diminishes the angst (and increases the demand). The trouble with government is that it’s too far removed from the clinical marketplace to make intelligent even relevant decisions, doesn’t realize the consequences of its actions, e.g. paying primary care doctors too little, thereby causing their exit from the physician population, and the costs, waiting lines, inefficiencies, and rationing, inevitable consequences of single payer systems in other countries.
Related posts:
- Single-payer in Sweden: A cautionary tale
- The public isn’t convinced about a single-payer system
- Single-payer: Is the ivory tower this naive?
- Single payer: The assault continues
- Single payer ills, part 2
- Medicare and single-payer
- Single payer to fix malpractice?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
The trouble with government is that it’s too far removed from the clinical marketplace to make intelligent even relevant decisions
Of course, private insurance makes oh so much better decisions. They know the consequences of their decisions too…people denied treatment==PROFIT.
Yeah, but I get to fire my insurance company and buy insurance from another if they get too unreasonable. Firing the government is a tad harder. Just ask Jeff Davis’s heirs.
Comments on this entry are closed.