Should the government run and control healthcare?
First of all the government already runs health care by regulating the licensing of doctors and other health care workers, regulating prescription drugs and regulating insurance. While the supporters of this regulation claim it is for the protection of the public, in practice the objective is to limit the availability of medical care so as to maintain wage levels for those in the industry. This is a classic cartel in which output is restricted in order to maintain high prices and limit competition.
Now some in government want to subsidize the demand side by having the taxpayers pay for health care. This would, of course, increase the demand for health care which would be good, in terms of profits, for the health care providers but would initially mean higher taxes. Normally when demand for a good or service increases investors rush in to take advantage of the opportunity to make money by increasing the supply of the good or service being offered. This results a fall in prices as supply increases. But cartels don't want competition or falling prices so they block attempts to increase the supply. The result is ever rising prices but no increase in the availability of the good or service.
The result of such a stalemate would be high taxes and long waits for medical care as people in Canada and other nations with nationalized health care experience. If the waiting lists get too long the government can also step in and ration the service directly by deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't - and who wants to place their their lives and health in the hands of politicians?
Each person should have the right to have access health care. I am not yet convinced that the government should run it.
I have no problem with government tax credits for private purchase of heath care. I think that that would address most of the rising costs.
In the long run, I think that the government should focus its attention on eliminating the corruption that exists between the insurance companies, the layers and the healthcare providers to artificially raise costs of service and insurance rates for care and malpractice. In my opinion, that should fall under the anti-trust laws
Along the same lines, I don't think that the government should requie doctors to perform procedures or give perscriptions that they personally think are immoral. For example, there are certain doctors and pharmacists that refuse to issue/fill perscriptions for birth control. As far as I am concerned, that is a decision that each provider has to make for him/herself. If they think that a certain action is immoral, or bad medicine, then they should not be legally required to do it.
I lived in germany for many years and was married to a physician. there are different types of socialized medicine. some work, some don't. canada, not so great and that is why it is used as an example against socialized medicine. in germany, I had my choice of doctor, hospital and was able to make appointments the same way I do in this country. also, the physicians made a nice wage but it was not over the top like some of the physicians here.
I like the idea of everyone having access to healthcare but I have serious reservations about giving the government control of it.
Brings to mind 2 questions: 1) Does the gov't have a track record of running things successfully ? 2) Who is going to pay for it ?
I think everyone should have acces to healthcare but who would run it if the government didnt? Who would pay for it then?
Yeah like here in Dubai the government run it.