Government Health Care
American Health Care is not perfect. But Socialized Medicine works as well as socialism in general. One can rail against free market economics all one wants, but basic economics is like gravity. One defies it at one's peril: see North Korea v. South Korea and East Germany v. West German as an example.
What socialists ignore in their emphasis on equal distribution is the small problem of production. Most people do not produce things (work) for nothing, nor out of charity. Nor can anyone produce anything for very long at a loss. In addition, the process of scientific and technological improvement which underlies progress in the West relies open the profit motive to capitalize it.
The market price for any good is the price that the demand roughly equals the supply. If you artificially lower the price, by some kind of state price control, the demand will exceed the supply. This is what we seen in every socialist economy: shortages. That is the state of things for the ordinary worker in Cuba. To a lesser extent, it is also the state of things in Canada, England and France.
In Canada and other socialist medical systems, there are waiting lists for basic services, and shortages of advanced technology. In Canada, it is easier to get an MRI for a dog than for a human being. If one does not have to pay for something, 1. one does not really appreciate it; 2. One has no motivation to economize the consumption of that something. Learning to be a doctor is a long, difficult, grueling process, which requires intelligence and other talents. If they are not compensated for this time, people will not endure the hardship.
According to Adam Smith, economic demand is virtually infinite. If the market is not allowed to allocate resources, then politicians must do so. Someone will have to decide who gets medical care, and how much. Modern, technological medical care does not "grow on trees." It is not available for free in unlimited quantitities. Not every person who needs a hip replacement or a heart surgery can get one. One cannot solve these problems by merely passing a law. In socialist countries, the politicians and elite get good medical care. Everyone else gets mediocre, rationed health care.
We already have a sort of socialized medical care in the form of emergency room medicine. I agree with Arnold Schwarzeneggar that this is an expensive way to provide basic medical care for the poor. We can do better. But there is no simple, government solution to the unequal distribution of medical care, any more than the unequal distribution of any other good or service. Marxism is a lovely in concept, horrible in practice.
What socialists ignore in their emphasis on equal distribution is the small problem of production. Most people do not produce things (work) for nothing, nor out of charity. Nor can anyone produce anything for very long at a loss. In addition, the process of scientific and technological improvement which underlies progress in the West relies open the profit motive to capitalize it.
The market price for any good is the price that the demand roughly equals the supply. If you artificially lower the price, by some kind of state price control, the demand will exceed the supply. This is what we seen in every socialist economy: shortages. That is the state of things for the ordinary worker in Cuba. To a lesser extent, it is also the state of things in Canada, England and France.
In Canada and other socialist medical systems, there are waiting lists for basic services, and shortages of advanced technology. In Canada, it is easier to get an MRI for a dog than for a human being. If one does not have to pay for something, 1. one does not really appreciate it; 2. One has no motivation to economize the consumption of that something. Learning to be a doctor is a long, difficult, grueling process, which requires intelligence and other talents. If they are not compensated for this time, people will not endure the hardship.
According to Adam Smith, economic demand is virtually infinite. If the market is not allowed to allocate resources, then politicians must do so. Someone will have to decide who gets medical care, and how much. Modern, technological medical care does not "grow on trees." It is not available for free in unlimited quantitities. Not every person who needs a hip replacement or a heart surgery can get one. One cannot solve these problems by merely passing a law. In socialist countries, the politicians and elite get good medical care. Everyone else gets mediocre, rationed health care.
We already have a sort of socialized medical care in the form of emergency room medicine. I agree with Arnold Schwarzeneggar that this is an expensive way to provide basic medical care for the poor. We can do better. But there is no simple, government solution to the unequal distribution of medical care, any more than the unequal distribution of any other good or service. Marxism is a lovely in concept, horrible in practice.
Comments
I hate to say I don't believe the statements you are making are fully supported by real evidence rather than anecdotal evidence. I am sure some Canadians have to weight for some services. But if they deliver free health care to everyone in Canada is that a bad tradeoff.
Certainly when I needed knee surgery, my doctor (HMO)tried to talk me out of it saying I should just avoid activity that irritated me knee. HMO's do try to limit services much like the Canadian examples.
However, 1) is it possible the vast majority of the English, French and Canadians are happy with their health care system & 2) won't the rich be able to buy their way out of the system however it is implemented?