Thursday, April 28, 2005
Single-payer a disaster in the making
[Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, "The myths behind 'free' health care," The Orange County Register, 27 April 2005.]
The debate over health care in the U.S. seems to have shifted away from the either/or of socialized medicine or consumer driven health care. Fortunately, belief in the effectiveness of the marketplace appears to have won out. The chimera of a utopia where everything is free but service and quality remains high nonetheless still holds a strong appeal for some:
The reasoning behind these delusions is explained and exposed in detail in a new book, "Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Around the World," by John C. Goodman, Gerald L. Musgrave and Devon M. Herrick.
The book discusses 20 myths that underlie the push for single-payer national health insurance.
The authors point out that the so-called basic human right to health care in countries with national health insurance is "nothing more than the opportunity to get services for free (or at very little cost) as the government decides to make those services available. But government is under no obligation to provide any particular service."
Government controls costs by imposing global budgets on hospitals and health authorities and limiting supply. As a result, demand exceeds supply for virtually every service, and patients are forced to wait months and even years for treatment.
Rationing of health care occurs in the U.S. too, especially in public hospitals that provide care for the uninsured, and for those on Medicare and Medicaid. In spite of this, average wait times in the U.S. are far shorter than in countries with national health care systems.
For example, 27 percent of Canadian patients and 36 percent of British patients must wait more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. By contrast, only about 5 percent of American patients wait that long.
In an article on the problems of unequal access in Britain, Patrick Butler observed: "Generally speaking, the poorer you are and the more socially deprived your area, the worse your care and access is likely to be."
Disparities by region and wealth also exist in the United States. But because emergency rooms cannot turn away any patient and the private medical sector is relatively robust, people in the United States have more actual access to health care services than is available in nationalized systems. We don't want to lose this access.
Rationing, inefficiencies and lack of quality are the real fruits of this socialist experiment. And we need less, not more of it. When patients decide with their own resources, including private insurance and savings, hospitals and physicians pay attention - and meet their needs.
[Michael Arnold Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, "The myths behind 'free' health care," The Orange County Register, 27 April 2005.]
The debate over health care in the U.S. seems to have shifted away from the either/or of socialized medicine or consumer driven health care. Fortunately, belief in the effectiveness of the marketplace appears to have won out. The chimera of a utopia where everything is free but service and quality remains high nonetheless still holds a strong appeal for some:
The reasoning behind these delusions is explained and exposed in detail in a new book, "Lives at Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Around the World," by John C. Goodman, Gerald L. Musgrave and Devon M. Herrick.
The book discusses 20 myths that underlie the push for single-payer national health insurance.
The authors point out that the so-called basic human right to health care in countries with national health insurance is "nothing more than the opportunity to get services for free (or at very little cost) as the government decides to make those services available. But government is under no obligation to provide any particular service."
Government controls costs by imposing global budgets on hospitals and health authorities and limiting supply. As a result, demand exceeds supply for virtually every service, and patients are forced to wait months and even years for treatment.
Rationing of health care occurs in the U.S. too, especially in public hospitals that provide care for the uninsured, and for those on Medicare and Medicaid. In spite of this, average wait times in the U.S. are far shorter than in countries with national health care systems.
For example, 27 percent of Canadian patients and 36 percent of British patients must wait more than four months for elective, non-emergency surgery. By contrast, only about 5 percent of American patients wait that long.
In an article on the problems of unequal access in Britain, Patrick Butler observed: "Generally speaking, the poorer you are and the more socially deprived your area, the worse your care and access is likely to be."
Disparities by region and wealth also exist in the United States. But because emergency rooms cannot turn away any patient and the private medical sector is relatively robust, people in the United States have more actual access to health care services than is available in nationalized systems. We don't want to lose this access.
Rationing, inefficiencies and lack of quality are the real fruits of this socialist experiment. And we need less, not more of it. When patients decide with their own resources, including private insurance and savings, hospitals and physicians pay attention - and meet their needs.
Comments:
Post a Comment
