Saturday, August 10, 2019

Once Again, the Basic Problems With Government Healthcare For All

At the post, Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary as a Healthcare Socialist, a commenter writes:

I believe in "medicaid" for all. It is the one and only socialistic thing I believe in. Care for the sick and needy and destitute should be a social thing imho. Absolutely free healthcare for all paid for by property taxes (real estate). If you're living high on the hog as a rich ass on the hill in your multi-million dollar mansion, you can have your property taxes pay for the healthcare of the poor and needy and destitute. If its based on property taxes and it is all the same rate of tax for all real estate property owners. Everyone having a little skin in the game to help each other is a good thing. Taxes would only be assessed based on actual costs so it would be adjusted year to year, and would go down if society becomes healthier.
With great wealth comes great responsibility.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, what lefties don't seem capable of doing, and government healthcare for all is a lefty position, is to think beyond the surface about policy:
 A long-time contention of mine is that lefties are not very deep thinkers. They react to what is in front of them and do not think of long-term consequences.
The problem is not about "Everyone having a little skin in the game to help each other is a good thing,"  but that when any sector is put under control of the government, it becomes an immediate target for the worst to gain control of the sector and it eliminates the private sector signals and consumer desires that make the sector efficient .

Creating a central power target for the worst in society to takeover just destroys a sector. And healthcare for all is nothing but creating a central power to control healthcare.

It would eliminate free market competition.

It would suffocate innovation.

It would distort prices as signals.

It would end up favoring the rich and those connected to power.

It would result in extremely limited quality and quantity of services and products available for the masses.

This is basic economics 101.

So those who call for government healthcare for all are not helping the poor, they are dooming the poor (and most others) to miserable inefficient high-cost healthcare.

If one opposes government interference elsewhere in the economy, why would one be in favor of it in the healthcare sector, unless one really doesn't understand the true problems with government central planning in the first place?



  1. Government involvement doesn't "simplify" anything. It "simply" makes things more complex, costly and inefficient. And government intervention in healthcare is a good example.

    Medical licensure, the third-party payment system, the Stabilization Act of 1942, the implementation of Medicare, diagnosis-related groups, and EMTALA, just to name a few, caused the delivery of healthcare to be more costly, complex and inefficient, which harms everyone, especially the poor.

  2. I'm the one who made that comment. I am for free market on everything for healthcare except for how it is paid for. That is all I am saying. No government intervention on prices. No government provided care providers. All free market competition to to provide services and charge whatever prices they want to establish markets and price signals.
    Just whatever is charged is taxed according to real estate property taxes.
    It is not like people choose to get debilitating diseases. If you get type 1 diabetes, it is not your fault and you basically financially screwed for the rest of your life unless society helps you out. Medication cost like $6000 a month to live. What? Just going to say tough luck and let the person die?

    1. I see your overarching point Caleb and society used to take care of the needed when there was a moral center to the sovereign! There no longer is and the lack of support for that good will for men is a big contributor to where we find ourselves now.

      Now with that said within the more narrow scope of RW's rebuttal. we know large scale change wont occur without swamp involvement. What you seek is the forced end to predatory practices in healthcare and that is indeed the only way forward.

      Unfortunately as you correctly assume policy enforcement for an open marketplace in all key sectors of healthcare is warranted.

      Its the only way to keep the badly run monopoly at bay.

    2. Caleb,
      If you’re for “a free market on everything in healthcare except for how it is paid for,” then you’re not truly in favor of a free market in healthcare. If government were removed from the healthcare equation, over time, prices would fall making healthcare, including drugs, more affordable. Charitable delivery of healthcare would increase as well.

      Moreover, taxation is theft. Besides, paying for healthcare with real estate taxes will cause those taxes to increase causing living standards to decrease.

  3. One part of the argument not seen is what may be called "The Control of Women". Whenever you hear "...between a woman and her doctor..." you may be assured that there are ulterior motives at work.

    As this becomes further embedded in the Constitution, ask yourself, "Who, then, controls the doctors?" What is the meaning of "Medicare for All?" The question answers itself. The doctor testifies "to the best of his professional knowledge" concerning the medical issues pertaining to any procedure he may perform. The patient has no statement that can stand against the power of the State.

    Women first, then the men.

    It always has been about State Control.

  4. The medication costs "$6000 per month" (accepting your figures for argument) with the currently tax financed, state cartelized medical practices, and state regulated health insurance markets.

    Not to mention state funded (filtered!) medical research and a whole host of other related issue.

    I can sympathize with people's problems. But you are arguing for worsening the reasons they are in such a horrible position to begin with.

    When I eventually go terminal (like every other human), or at any time prior, I never suddenly get some magical moral claim over everyone elses lives to force them to help me.

    I would suggest freely giving your own resources and convincing other give to charities and people in need like this; and typically the more local the better.

    But there is no sound argument for conscripting your neighbor. That is the fundamental idea you are supporting.

  5. I think Caleb believes that when the government extorts money through taxes to pay for healthcare, the government won't demand any oversight how government healthcare money is spent. Caleb trusts the government. He puts more trust in Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, The Bushes and the stable genius than in the free market.

    Caleb also assumes that free markets caused the dramatic rise in healthcare costs. Government intervention (Medicare, Medicaid) caused the extreme rise in healthcare costs. His antidote for the government caused price rises, is to make healthcare a "right" and thereby legitimize government interference in private transactions.

    He also ignores the fact that by making government a permanent element of healthcare, there will never be a free market in healthcare.

    My question to Caleb: "If free markets enable the prices of goods and services to go down and the quality of goods and services to go up, please explain how a permanent government intervention in healthcare will cause healthcare prices to go down and healthcare quality to go up?

    Also when he talks about "Everybody having skin in the game," he leaves out that in his scenario everyone is FORCED to have skin in the game through government intervention. In a free market, everyone CHOOSES to have or not have skin in the game.