My opinion regarding public health care is not popular among Republicans. This is understandable. It's true that public health care will displace a good chunk of the health insurance industry, specifically the chunk that provides minimal coverage. It's true that this will cause layoffs in the health insurance business at a time when jobs are scarce.
Think on that for just a moment, though. Why will there be layoffs? Yes, there will be less money poured into the massive insurance pools. Yes, this will cut into insurance company profits. But there will also be less money tied up in those pools, and less profit in the hands of company executives, who have no worries regarding layoffs. The layoffs will, instead, hit the administrative wings of those insurers -- the adjusters, the examiners, and fraud investigators.
It is a statistical and arguably-empirical fact that public health care has fewer administrative costs than private insurers. This makes sense: when there is one system that pays, and that system is bound by law to pay, then you need fewer people making sure a patient isn't committing fraud. The sick and dying are treated without question. Those in need get the care they need, and they get it without worrying about if they forgot to disclose a medication in an application form. So, public health care has fewer administrative costs.
It is a statistical and arguably-empirical fact that public health care has greater market power than private insurers. This makes sense: public health care is, by operation, a public monopoly, and monopolies are defined by the overwhelming market power they possess. Public health care can demand drugs, equipment, or services at set prices. Private insurers compete with one another to do so, but they are not half as effective as a public system. Ask doctors in Japan or Germany about how the public system operates to keep their wages low and manageable. Ask about the troubles those doctors have had to make ends meet. Imagine a system where the doctors and health care providers are not making hand-over-fist money; that's what a public system can demand. So, public health care can lower costs within the health care industry.
It is a statistical and arguably-empirical fact that the movement against public health care is funded by pharmaceutical companies, and other companies that benefit enormously from the United States' "free market." Yet, for whatever reason, these companies still operate in countries with public health care. Why would a company operate in an area where it cannot make a profit, or cannot conduct business? The truth is that health care companies can, and do, make profits in a public health care system. Hell, there are private insurers in Canada that provide coverage above and beyond what the public system provides So, public health care does not completely stifle the free market; rather, it changes the rules significantly, and forces companies in the industry to keep costs low and innovate.
Lower administrative costs. Lower costs for goods and services. Encouraging innovation and discouraging waste. These are capitalist principles. These are principles that exist where there is a public health care system. There is no -- I repeat, no -- cogent argument that is consistent with basic economic theory against the public health care as an institution. The only thing keeping the United States in the Dark Ages is propaganda and fear, two things we condemn the Chinese government for (who, by the way, also has a public health care system).
No comments:
Post a Comment