Are we better off with a government monopoly on medical care or with free choice in a competitive marketplace?
Bruce asked:
Whether by a “single-payer” socialized medicine system or by government-subsidized “insurance” that deeply undercuts private rates, effectively driving out private insurers, Democratic schemes promise a government monopoly on medical care. Would we be better off under a government-enforced monopoly funded by high taxes or under a competitive free market where companies vie to supply better medical care and insurance at cheaper prices?
This entry was posted
on Monday, November 16th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Government.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Whether by a “single-payer” socialized medicine system or by government-subsidized “insurance” that deeply undercuts private rates, effectively driving out private insurers, Democratic schemes promise a government monopoly on medical care. Would we be better off under a government-enforced monopoly funded by high taxes or under a competitive free market where companies vie to supply better medical care and insurance at cheaper prices?
Some considerations:
1. How successful has government been in running other monopolies, e.g., the postal service or public schools?
2. In general, do monopolies (e.g., cable companies) supply goods and services better than competitive markets?
3. Today, it may cost a billion dollars to research, develop, and market a medicine. Who takes the risk to develop expensive new medicines and medical technology under government monopoly?
November 17th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
A competitive free market. We haven’t had that in decades though. ^ He’s A Jackazz
November 21st, 2009 at 5:30 am
GM, AIG, multiple banks and investment firms all had a competitive marketplace.
You’re paying for that philosophy now. guru
November 21st, 2009 at 7:52 am
No one is proposing a government monopoly. They are proposing a government OPTION to foster competition. Stop listening to the Faux News kool aid, and get the facts. scott b
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
A “Government monopoly” by it’s very nature is a negative. Louis S
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Multitudes of millions of people have fled countries that had government monopolies and did not give them a choice. Well Duh!
November 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
And what about medicare?! it has all sorts of corruption in it. Look at the roads too. Then the big one is how does the govt take care of our veterans? Point is, single payer does not work and the option of single payer will stamp out any competition. The government has unlimited funds to spend. how can private companies compete? they cannot! Plus when socialized medicine kicks in, it is guaranteed that those from China and India who are in our medical schools will surely go back to their countries, and why wouldnt they. They can make the same there and be at home instead of staying here and enjoying a good living with premier health care, which it wont be anymore when govt takes it over. Trust me, this is not the direction we want for our country. oopsie913
November 28th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Interesting article None the less, with a single-payer system. That is an immediate savings of 20% of our Overall annual Health care expense.
Using a Single payer we eliminate the middle man and we simply negotiate with doctors or by some similar means.
Currently, the free market system denies coverage, place caps on coverage. Yet can manage to compensate a single insurance executive $100.000.000. in a single year.
The shareholders also reap respectable dividends. I understand why the Insurance lobby is spending to defeat Single- Payer or a Public Option through their “buying of are elected “leaders” who can sell us out for a free trip, or all expense paid trip to a brothel.
I also think if Big insurance Wins and wins large. We should make sure we know all perks received from our senators and representatives. So we can hold them accountable in future elections. Don L
December 1st, 2009 at 5:23 am
The best option is to provide both.
In Australia we have a universal health care system for hospital treatment, which covers everyone. It also provides subsidies for things like visiting your GP or having an x-ray out of hospital. This system ensures that everyone, regardless of age, employment status etc receives healthcare when they need it.
However there is also a large private health industry in Australia. Belonging to a private health fund enables people who can afford it to be treated in a private hospital, which in turn enables private health insurance holders to skip being put on waiting lists for elective surgery. It also allows choice of your own doctor for scheduled hospital treatments. Approximately 50% of Australians are members of a private health fund.
It is worth considering also that the United States is the only developed nation that doesn’t offer universal healthcare to its population. It is also worth noting that the World Health Organiation ranks the US at 37th in the world in terms of the quality of its healthcare system - in other words don’t believe the hype about the American system being the best in the world - it isn’t. ozchristianguy
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 am
Hell NO to a government monopoly. That is a no brainer question. Free choice, with the emphasis on free choice, tells it all. Pocket Protecktor