Great op-ed in the WSJ, which spells it out in simple language:
Reducing health-care spending isn’t hard: Just give the government control over the national health-care budget and you’ll see spending decline. Access to physicians and hospitals, the newest technology, important therapies and the best medications will also decline over time. But that’s the trade-off society makes when the government controls health-care spending.It’s remarkable how gullible people are who claim, “Canada (or England, or France, etc.) manages to provide universal coverage for much less than the U.S. spends on health care.” They seem to think these other countries have reached some sort of economic nirvana. These countries spend less — usually between 8% to 10% of GDP versus nearly 16% in the U.S. — simply because health-care spending isn’t a function of consumer demand; it’s a function of political demand.
To those who say things like “Canada’s system isn’t adequately funded”, what makes you think that our government will adequately fund any federal health care plan? Take a look at how the our government-run, single-payer Indian Health Service is working out.
