While I largely agree with you, you overstate your case. Many of the health care systems around the world run pretty well. France and Singapore, for example, are generally reported to have quite effective systems, with of course flaws as all systems have.
The US excels in many areas, and is near the back of the pack in others. What is indisputable, I believe, is that we spend more than any other country, and yet many Americans don't have ready access to medical care when they need it.
The government will never be able to fully remove itself from the health care system.
The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don't have insurance.
This means that either everybody must be forced to buy insurance, OR government will pick up the tab for emergency care of those who choose not to, OR providers will be forced to provide care, which they will compensate for by increasing the charges to those who can pay.
I'm not necessarily in favor of this situation, just reporting it. The whole purpose, economically speaking, of a "health care system" is to spread the cost of the total system out over the entire population. The vast majority, who don't get really sick in any given year, will pay in a lot more than they get out. They can pay in via insurance, or through taxes, or through some combination of the two, as in most countries.
What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens.
The government will never be able to fully remove itself from the health care system.
True. The political class realizes the power and control they can exert through controlling our healthcare. If anything government will push to control all of our healthcare.
The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don't have insurance.
No argument there. The American people are quite compassionate. However, if we could imagine the government never being involved in health care, then we would over time, private charities would have evolved to easily take care the indigent. They did so before government pushed them out of the way.
With no government involvement there health care costs would be lower, so the burden less. With technological advances, charities would be themselves competing to help the poor in a truly more efficient manner. Feedback mechanisms would provide information to show which charities provide the most bang for the buck. People would be more willing to donate to such charities and thereby providing more efficient care to the truly indigent.
Charities would also not waste money on those who are scammers or needlessly abuse the system -- they would be better wards of donated dollars.
With government systems they are inherently bureaucratic. Much of our money is absorbed in the bureaucracies. They are people spending other people's money with no penalties for waste and fraud. In one consulting job I was involved with health care systems and the insane amount of reporting and paperwork and control by the government is mind-boggling.
This means that either everybody must be forced to buy insurance, OR government will pick up the tab for emergency care of those who choose not to, OR providers will be forced to provide care, which they will compensate for by increasing the charges to those who can pay.
Again, this crisis exist because of government involvement. If we could imagine the government never being involved then this situation would never have evolved. The market place would have evolved to efficient develop to deliver very affordable health care costs.
We could easily imagine people going to doctors and paying cash for most regular visits. Simple, efficient and easy. With government never being involved people would have a tradition and a strong incentive to be more responsible. People would naturally be inclined to purchase catastrophic insurance to handle low probability high-cost year-to-year events. I have catastrophic insurance. Those what are wise enough to get such insurance would rightfully be rewarded by having access to better hospitals and care.
There would still be a "need" and therefore market mechanisms in place that would serve those who do not choose wisely. They would have access to hospitals and services that cost much less but that would not have the best equipment or the best rated doctors. That would be proper because of their decision to not get catastrophic insurance. In a truly free society people would be aware of such realities and out of self-interest, they would have a strong incentive to purchase catastrophic insurance. They would adjust their budgets and likely spend less on some things and move it towards health care. This would occur without government or liberals intervening!
Milton Friedman and others have written at length about the beauty of markets solving the problems of health care. Prices would be driven down dramatically and quality would go up as hospitals and doctors compete. It's sad that it will likely never be a reality.
There are many more benefits of a truly free market-base system that cannot even be known because they are not allowed to come into existence. Go back twenty years, could anyone have seen the development and explosion of smart phones of the amazing growth of the Internet? No. But they are here and benefiting us greatly. They developed because of people being free to engage in commerce and be rewarded for success; profit from such activities (people voting with their dollars)
Imagine if twenty years ago the government took over the development and/or had companies meet government specs on cell phones. With a few big players they would use crony capitalism (i.e. using government) to squish newcomers. It's easy to imagine the government "forbidding" this and that from small startups with great ideas. Companies would be happy with a fixed market share with a known return. There is no doubt that the pace of advancement would be slowed greatly. We would likely be not much further along than brick phones. We would be here today not ever knowing the wonderful benefit of smart-phones and other technological advances.
Instead, we have a somewhat free market where people vote with dollars and compel companies to offer better and better products and the best price. If not they lose market share, profits and in the worse case, they go out of business.
Government bureaucracies cannot and will never face market pressures to improve. If they fail, their budgets increase. Their incentive is to grow and push out private players. They benefit from inefficiencies and a populace in crisis.
What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens. ,
Agreed, but that is not how it should be. Government involvement will guarantee that costs will never go down and that quality will never go up. Government is the absolute sole reason that our health care system is in crisis.
In all matters, we should strive to allow market-place solutions; which is nothing but allowing people to vote with their dollars and chose who is best to serve them. With government there is only forced control. In other words, Freedom is always superior to the force of government.
“The American people ARE NOT going to be willing to have people dying on the street in front of the hospital because they don’t have insurance.”
Which of course has never been the situation in the US. Regardless of how many times this claim has been made, we can see from history that it did not happen before health insurance became the norm and it will not happen if we are ever able to remove government from the market.
“What is indisputable, I believe, is that we spend more than any other country, and yet many Americans don’t have ready access to medical care when they need it.”
Completely false. Either you are purposely lying or you are an unwitting dupe to the left’s argument for central planning. I challenge you to name ONE American citizen that was not able to acquire medical care when they needed it.
“The whole purpose, economically speaking, of a “health care system” is to spread the cost of the total system out over the entire population.”
The purpose of any industry is for product or service providors to be motivated to make a profit. Period. That purpose does not change with the title of the industry. The Insurance industry is certainly a voluntary transfer of risk between two parties, but it is not spreading a specified cost.
As soon as you start “spreading the cost of a total system over the entire population” you have nothing but collectivism. That breeds lowered accountability by individuals and it increases costs. Name one example where collectivism has improved the way of life for those involved. BTW, a hippie commune is to small to be a significant example.
“What will not and cannot work is guaranteed availability to every citizen, without enforced contribution from all citizens.”
Yes, you can FORCE contribution to a system, or to put it more plainly you can take money from everyone vie the barrel of a gun. However, you will never be able to gaurantee availabilty to anyone, let alone every citizen, unless you are willing to force producers (doctors, nurses, etc.) to actually do specific work tasks. Eventually you must then force “competent students in the department of education” to enter “the department of vocations” to become a nurse or doctor, etc. Our name is Equality 7-2521
Your examples of other countries “that are not that bad” are only able to survive because we have been their beacon on a hill. Without our HC industry, you will see collapsing dominos throughout the world.
I hate to ask a personal question, but I am compelled. How old are you? I am suspecting that you are to young to have much experience with collectivists and their ideas....