“By the end of 2007, the nation’s health care bill was some $2 trillion a year, or 16% of the U.S. economy. Government is already paying 47% of it. All of the major party presidential candidates of both parties are proposing, in one way or another, that government assume more of the burden. Leading Democrats advocate increasing taxpayer spending by around $100 billion a year, largely to help people purchase private insurance plans. Is this a march toward socialized medicine, a system run by the same people who operate our postal service? Is it a boondoggle for the insurance industry, eager for mandatory insurance laws? Or is the campaign issue solely about getting more votes?” — Thomas C. Reeves, blogging at the History News Network
It’s a total disaster, isn’t it. I tell you what though, I’m not so sure socialized medicine would be all that much worse than what we have now. What can be done, man?
Today the consumer is not the payer because it’s just a matter of dropping your insurance card and paying a $10 co pay. The consumer isn’t concerned about getting a good value, because the price is always the same. So he doesn’t shop around and force competition to drop prices. Insurance rates climb radically and people wonder why. Maybe socialized medicine is horrible, but so is our current system. Maybe we’d be better off. I don’t know.
Yes but, socialized healthcare would make the problem you describe (consumer far removed from costs) worse…so how could it help healthcare?
Well, I’m not saying it helps. I’m just saying that both systems suck, so why even get worked up about socialized medicine. It’s all bad. I suppose it would probably be a little worse.
…and a whole lot more expensive, especially over time. Just look at the quote above.