Search
Monday, February 06, 2012 ..:: Home ::.. Register  Login
 Foundations Minimize

What I'm For
and Against

PRO

  • Atomic power
  • Space Exploration
  • Free Trade
  • Capitalism
  • Home Schooling
  • Liberty
  • Amendments IX and X
  • 10th Commandment
  • Good Manners

ANTI

  • War on Drugs 
  • "Universal" Health Care
  • Religion-based government 
  • Big Government of any kind
  • Compulsory government monopoly mass schooling
  • Income Tax
  • Windmills and other government-subsidized "alternative" energy boondoggles
  • The idea that electing the "right" person will make everything better

 Print   
 Clock Minimize

This excellent clock comes from the Poodwaddle web site.  Yes, that's what it's called!

 


 Print   
 TC Archive Minimize

 Print   
 DownsizeDC Minimize

 Print   
 The Town Crank Minimize
free counters
Jul 15

Written by: Steve Erbach
Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:13 AM

Single-payer, government-administered health insurance plans have one thing going for them: they're simple to explain. That is, what could be simpler than dealing with one organization, the government, when it comes to health insurance claims? The government isn't out to turn a profit nor is it motivated by looking for ways to avoid taxes or to satisfy stock holders. None of that rubbish.

But perhaps things aren't quite so clear. In a paper posted on the Free Market Cure web site, author David Gratzer examines the issues that make "simple" government-run health insurance a tad more complicated. Here's his summary:

[P]rominent politicians recognize the angst of middle America and flirt with single payer. "I think we've reached a point where the entire health care system is in impending crisis. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should begin drafting a single-payer national health plan," former Vice President Al Gore stated in the fall of 2002. His comments weren't greeted with a sea of enthusiasm but the fact that a serious contender for the Democratic presidential nomination would flirt with the idea suggests that single-payer health care is at least a possibility.

And it is. True, there is limited enthusiasm on the part of federal politicians to take on a sweeping new initiative after the grand failure of Clinton-care. True, too, that American journalists increasingly report the problems of single-payer systems like Canada's medicare. But Americans wouldn't completely dismiss the idea.

It lives on because of its simplicity. Those who promote single payer present the idea as a magic bullet. Why fuss with the sticky economics of health care when all you need is a simple government initiative? Indeed, the word simple (and its derivatives) seems to appear as often in Himmelstein and Woolhandler's book as motivation speakers shower their talks with the word empowerment.

In this paper, we explore the government temptation. Far from being an elegant solution, we find that government-run health care systems are universally plagued with deep problems. Whether we look to Canada or Britain or Germany, we find that single payer is a fanciful temptation, like hoping that a new house will save a troubled marriage.

Tags:

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment    Cancel  

  
 Tea Partyer Minimize

Time for a Tea Party!

U.S. Congressman, Maxine Waters, says that the TEA Party "can go straight to hell."  Well, after you, Maxine!


 Print   
 Our Founder Minimize

Our Founder

"Just shut yer yap, leave me alone, and stop raising my blankety blank taxes!"

You are free to add your two cents to any blog entry; but if you want to send a deeply personal message to Our Founder, [click here].


 Print   
 Regular Reading Minimize

 Print   
Copyright 2010 by Steven W. Erbach   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement
DotNetNuke® is copyright 2002-2012 by DotNetNuke Corporation