In this article, the author makes the bizarre argument that even though the USPS is generally inferior to UPS or Fedex, and even though Amtrak is a travesty of a rail company, they would make good models for federally provided health care. The argument essentially boils down to this: the USPS may not be all that good, but no other private company does what it does, so the USPS is better than nothing. What's the problem with this argument? Private companies are forbidden by law from competing with the post office when it comes to basic mail delivery.
If anything, this article makes a great case for why the government should not be directly involved in the actual provision of health care. Nobody doubts that people would rather have basic health care than none at all. A sensible person might conclude from these ideas then that the government should provide financial support to people to ensure that they have basic health care, rather than provide the care itself.
One other note: health insurance is far different from the actual provision of health care. Health insurance can only be cheap if the actual health care is cheap. The only way government insurance can be cheap is if it drastically underpays doctors and hospitals (which would lead to many shortages and other problems), or if the government directly runs the hospitals. Anyone excited about heading to the public hospital?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Oh, how true. The only way to make healthcare truly affordable is to reduce the costs of that healthcare. The only way to truly reduce the costs of healthcare (without affecting the supply) is to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance. The only way to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance is to limit malpractice litigation--anyone expect Congress to tell you what the maximum amount you can sue your doctor is? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
Post a Comment