Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.
Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to “bring down the cost of medical care.”
There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.
In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.
Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already— and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a “duty to die.”
A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby “bring down the cost of medical care.” A stranger’s death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.
At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a “duty to die” so that younger people can live it up is obscene.
You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain’s government-run medical system.
You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.
But reducing these things is not “bringing down the cost of medical care.” It is simply refusing to pay those costs— and taking the consequences.
For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.
Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things— namely, “health care” and “medical care.” Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don’t do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.
Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.
If we are serious about medical care— and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death— then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.
If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.
The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world— and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.
We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change— for the worse— if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.
Do you like this story?
Demanding government-run health care in the USA because every other country does it, is a cop-out. If a wave of antisemitism sweeps across Europe, and one country after another breaks off diplomatic ties with Israel, does that mean we Americans should follow suit? So to demand government run health care, with all the consequences Thomas Sowell so eloquenty describes, simply because other countries have government-run health care is just plain stupid.
I think Americans' support for it has more to do with the idea of getting something for free, plus the confusing billing process of the current system. With a government-paid system, you don't get involved with either paying for it [at least not apparently] or with a lot of paperwork. [Not that I support socialized medicine.]
Yet that's what my doctor told me. Can you believe it? Just because one is rational in one area doesn't guarantee it in another.
Have you heard anything about Mike?
I don't understand the rationale that says, just because others do it, we are supposed to do the same. In the first place, these are different countries which have no constitutional limitations on the powers of their respective federal governments. We have strict limitations on the power=scope of federal invovement. Just because other people permit things to occur, it doesn't mean we should violate the law. In the second place, there is an arguement, “well the federal government is already involved in health care.” The response is, “well, people currently rob banks too, do we want to encourage that?”
[...] Originally Posted by Inphormer Per capita expenditure. That's assuming, of course, that you will receive the same level of care. Which is not true. [...]
[...] expenditure. That's assuming, of course, that you will receive the same level of care. Which is not true. My preference is to spend less and live longer. It's as simple as that. __________________ [...]