0
0

[–] ougNaHadNepVed ago 

She doesn't say it in so many words, but she is saying, "If you can't afford it, you can't have it". People who want universal health care want something for nothing, someone else to pay for their health care. And, if health care was cheap, that's how it would be, like libraries.

But health care isn't cheap, so it will always be rationed under any health care plan, because society can't afford all the health care that people would demand if it was below cost. As she says, the rationing will be by bureaucrats instead of ability to pay, in any health care system that gives something for nothing to anyone.

People are going to die because they don't get health care in any system, just that those who don't get health care will be different if markets aren't used to ration healthcare.

An argument can be made that some level of free healthcare as a public good can be justified based on ROI. These are the acute conditions, where recovery yields a contributing member of society that will more than pay for the cost of their treatment. But politicians will find it extremely difficult to put in place such a system.

0
1

[–] DickHertz 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

A single provider system has obvious advantages of scale with respect to overall cost particularly with respect to pharmaceuticals.

0
0

[–] ougNaHadNepVed ago 

I can see that. But, who will develop the drugs? Currently, the US develops most drugs, because the payoff is greatest here. If that goes away, will the pace of drug development slow to reflect that decline. I don't think there is any disagreement that it is very expensive to develop and test a new drug, and that there aren't really any cheaper ways to do it and still meet the regulatory hurdles.

And if you squeeze payments to doctors via single payer, to the point that it isn't worth the cost of a medical education, will it not lead to a decline in quality and quantity of care? Do we poach doctors from developing countries as part of our healthcare system?

0
2

[–] daskapitalist [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You have a point in that scarcity in a factor in any economic system, though I think you're missing that capitalism is the most efficient means of allocating scarce resources. TANSTAAFL, but capitalism does result in the most lunches.

1
-1

[–] ougNaHadNepVed 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Efficient in physical terms, but not necessarily the most efficient in social terms. If we lived in a jungle, the epitome of capitalist systems, then we would have no choice. But we are humans, with social systems in place to insulate us from the jungle. The original term for economics was political economy, in recognition of this.

And I haven't even discussed market signalling among market oligarchs. For example, Coke and Pepsi sell sugar water. Nothing that can't be duplicated. But they never seem to compete on price. If they were competing on price, their profit margins would certainly not be in the double digits. They aren't collusive in the sense of holding meetings, but they have reached an agreement through market signalling, that they won't compete on price. The same goes for credit card rates. And many other goods. I think it becomes evident that we don't live in a truly capitalist system.