You hear a lot about how bad health care is here in the US. Well, here's 10 reasons why some of the bad stuff is a bit of an exaggeration.
Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - Here’s a Second Opinion
Now - I've been subject to the military health care system, and the civilian. Active duty military care is fine for trauma-related injuries, and the other injuries that are likely in a cohort of healthy, able-bodied people in the 18-45 age range. It wasn't so hot for vision care, was pretty slow on dental. Cancer? Nah. Cardiac? Not so much.
When I got out, I went without paid medical care for the better part of a decade. When you're going along paycheck to paycheck, hopping from low-paid job to job, you need to wait at least 90 days for insurance to kick in anyway, and then it's going to be probably 20% of your paycheck for the premium anyway... well, something gets cut out of the budget. If something really bad had happened, I had the VA system to fall back on - providing I could get in to see a doctor. THAT was a last-ditch choice. But I digress here...
The point I'm making is that the government wants to take over the entire range of health care. From pre-natal to geriatric, from wellness checkups to hospice care, for whatever reason the folks in Washington feel they can do it all better than the free market.
But one thing that's missed is that government does not adapt itself to the needs of those it serves - those it serves has to adapt to what the government will provide. And there's constraints on what the government can provide in a cost-effective manner.
When innovation is needed, it happens - but it takes a god-awful event (like a world war) to get innovation kickstarted, and that's usually focused in a particular direction. There has to be an OVERWHELMING need to innovate - and even then there's going to be a lot of money wasted to come up with a solution that will likely be considerably less than optimal.
Why? Because there's nothing to be gained for government to do the basic R&D on a whole lot of issues, much less force any particular idea to market in a timely manner. Technology? Yeah, DARPA does some - but what they do is usually the groundwork for a whole lot MORE innovation and research spending. Actual production? Not so much - because there's no REWARD for the government to produce something for public use in a retail market.
The private sector will spend millions on health care research because of the potential of making much more than that from selling the results. But when you have government take over health care, different factors kick in. The most important one being cost control... or the appearance of it, at the very least.
This will mean little to no research, little to no innovation, and the cheapest possible way of doing things will become the standard treatement - whether it's the best for the individual or not.
A good parallel might be how the USSR and the US developed PCs. There wasn't a monolithic government agency directing through 5-year plans how software and hardware were developed in the US - instead you had massive numbers of companies (lots of whom failed in their attempts to grab market share - anyone else remember Everex? Or the Samsung PCs in the late '80s? AST PCs?) chasing what they thought would be most profitable.
And after economic evolution - look at what we've got today. The USSR wasn't an innovator when it came to PCs or software (though it could be argued that Tetris was a worldwide hit, it was also developed by one person instead of by the government) and still isn't known for their innovative production capabilities. They had to reverse engineer items bought in the free world. They simply couldn't match the speed of innovation and response to customer demand in an unrestricted economy.
(As a side benefit - the Internet came about. Mixed blessing, eh?)
Now, take a look at cell phones - think there'd be so many makes and models of them if there were only one carrier? Pretty much anyone thirty years old or less won't remember when there was only ONE phone provider in any given area, that it was a land-line only, and that you had a VERY limited range of options regarding telephones.
But once the monopoly was broken up - all of a sudden there was a LOT of innovation, cell phones went from an expensive curiosity to something eminently affordable, and the cell phones have so many features it's almost insane.
Can you imagine what a government-developed and produced iPhone would look like - if it existed at all?
How about cameras - wouldn't silver-nitrate black and white film be good enough? Who really needed color pictures, color slides, DIGITAL cameras, digital video cameras, portable digital storage, high-density storage, personal printers... well, you get the drift.
Now - just why again is it that it's supposedly 'better' for health care to be handled by the government?
J.