Comments on: The insolvency of single payer http://www.logipundit.com/2007/11/the-insolvency-of-single-payer.html A Bastion of Reason Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:17:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: wdporter http://www.logipundit.com/2007/11/the-insolvency-of-single-payer.html#comment-3014 wdporter Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:59:00 +0000 http://www.logipundit.com/blog/?p=2300#comment-3014 A clarification/correction:<br/><br/>"This happens every time something is released from Government control, even WITH lots of regulation. Telecom is the best example of this."<br/><br/>This is not to imply that Healthcare is currently under Federal control, just that putting the consumer in the driver's seat would have the same effect. A clarification/correction:

“This happens every time something is released from Government control, even WITH lots of regulation. Telecom is the best example of this.”

This is not to imply that Healthcare is currently under Federal control, just that putting the consumer in the driver’s seat would have the same effect.

]]> By: wdporter http://www.logipundit.com/2007/11/the-insolvency-of-single-payer.html#comment-3013 wdporter Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:55:00 +0000 http://www.logipundit.com/blog/?p=2300#comment-3013 Great post. I would disagree a little bit about the costs, though.<br/><br/>The truth is, most people poo-pooing the current private market-driven system just don't realize that it is NOT a truly market-driven system. Healthcare is a highly technological arena which under an ACTUAL market-driven system, costs for certain treatments, equipment, etc. would go down over time, just like HDTVs or microwaves.<br/><br/>The problem is that Corporations and Insurance companies manage to keep the policy-holder--the would-be market driver--completely out of the decision process which means costs remain artificially high.<br/><br/>Shifting control from insurance and corporations to the Government would only magnify that problem, and artificially FORCING reduced PRICES would not succeed in reducing COSTS. The result is decreased access and reduced quality.<br/><br/>However, shifting the control back to the policy-holders would incent wellness efforts by the consumer, and said consumers would begin to demand INCREASED quality, and REDUCED costs...simultaneously. It happens every time something is released from Government control, even WITH lots of regulation. Telecom is the best example of this.<br/><br/>It's real easy to make a SOCIAL argument for "Universal" healthcare, but those that do should avoid trying to make an economic one...because there is little reality supporting such an argument. Great post. I would disagree a little bit about the costs, though.

The truth is, most people poo-pooing the current private market-driven system just don’t realize that it is NOT a truly market-driven system. Healthcare is a highly technological arena which under an ACTUAL market-driven system, costs for certain treatments, equipment, etc. would go down over time, just like HDTVs or microwaves.

The problem is that Corporations and Insurance companies manage to keep the policy-holder–the would-be market driver–completely out of the decision process which means costs remain artificially high.

Shifting control from insurance and corporations to the Government would only magnify that problem, and artificially FORCING reduced PRICES would not succeed in reducing COSTS. The result is decreased access and reduced quality.

However, shifting the control back to the policy-holders would incent wellness efforts by the consumer, and said consumers would begin to demand INCREASED quality, and REDUCED costs…simultaneously. It happens every time something is released from Government control, even WITH lots of regulation. Telecom is the best example of this.

It’s real easy to make a SOCIAL argument for “Universal” healthcare, but those that do should avoid trying to make an economic one…because there is little reality supporting such an argument.

]]>