I know this is really a very broad question because the analysis could be done on political, economic or even philosophical grounds. So I’m open to hearing any evaluation posters are willing to provide.
I’m also interested to know what AE has to say in terms of predictions of performance with regards to the healthcare bills being discussed both in the House and the Senate?
I guess I should also add that I’m aware of several different plans the Dems have come up with, a strong public option, a weaker public option that allows states to opt out, and also a trigger (from what I understand, the strongest of the public option proposals) that would only take effect if prices aren’t brought down by a certain date.
Does it matter which plan they end up voting on? Are all public options essentially the same from the viewpoint of AE?
Also, what do you think about the individual mandate that would require every citizen to purchase government approved insurance or face fines and/or jail time?
Some consequences according to a general praxeological look: quality of care goes down, care is strictly rationed by government bean counters, capital isn’t updated/upgraded, and people become even more infantalized.
As for fines and jail time for not being a good little sheep…I think you can see how I feel about that.
I think it will be a disaster.The only thing about living within a disaster long enough is the inhabitants no longer recognize the disaster. A few decades into this mess, government will completely control all of health care, and people won’t even grasp how health care can be delivered without the government.
It’s like living in the matrix, which this site has pulled me out of. People can’t imagine education without public schools, a world without US policing, life without “safety nets”, etc. This will be no different. Thirty years from now, some “crazy” free market guy will say society should dump government health care. People will respond saying he’s crazy. How would they get flu shots, band aids, and medicine?
One factor that I don’t hear many discuss are the ramifications that government healthcare would impose on the creation of new innovative medical technologies. One of the primary reasons why the US is a leader in medical technology is because of the free market.
In the best-case scenario, it will simply reduce the quality of the healthcare, lead to a more powerful government, higher taxes, and less freedom overall. More likely, the government will use the healthcare system as a weapon against political dissidents, with a lot of “medical accidents” happening to those who are registered voters of opposition parties or are known to oppose the government in any sense (atheists, entrepreneurs, etc.).
I tend to agree with everything posted here so far.
And I think the question of innovation is definitely being totally ignored. What makes these central planners think they can match the ingenuity of a free market? It’s obviously not possible.
I don’t think any of the wannabe central planners even pretend to consider that argument. They’re too near-sighted; focusing their efforts and rhetoric solely on “managing” a system that is already largely in place.
Of course once codified, that “system” becomes very much closed. Any new or potentially new treatment or procedure will, at least initially, be rejected by the nationalized system. Getting approval will not be inexpensive, and it probably won’t be speedy, either.
I don’t know enough about every single market out there to be able to provide an intelligent response to this question, but I certainly tend to doubt that centralized planning in any kind of economic endeavor leads to more innovation than free market forces are capable of. It’s just too much for any group of people sitting in a board room somewhere to be capable of, imo.
Most of the stuff I’ve read by Milton Friedman talks about defense and common goods. He talks about all four types of market failures. That being said, even if I’d never read the stuff I’ve read, the simple problem remains that it’s very hard to quantify how much defense one person needs or how much a group of individuals need. It’s a one size fits all thing. Whereas things like healthcare are not and that’s why socialized medicine is destined to fail because of the tragedy of the commons.
That’s one way of putting it, yes. Another way to look at it is if people were allowed to choose how much defense they needed as individuals, we might end up with massive imbalances where one person would have lots of military support and everyone else would have very little. Which would probably lead to civil war. It’s better to just have everyone pay in and get the exact same amount of defense. Thus defense fits under the common goods market failure category.