Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven't noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.
What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.
A long line for service is an improvement over no service. I didn't say "the poor" would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.
The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.
I think my projection is pretty good, though I have no idea how the percentage will fall out. I agree that for "most" people the results will be somewhat worse than they are now.
Government run health care will indeed make the health care worse for EVERYONE but the very rich. That is obvious by looking around the world at other government systems. Nothing, absolutely nothing good will come from any government (ie sadistic bureaucratic control) system.
You need to ponder the unintended consequences of government intervention. We have no idea of the advances in medicine that would already be available in the market place if not for the of decades of abusive regulations and the corruption of the FDA.
If third party health care didn't exist (came about b/c of government controls), if the FDA didn't exist, if government licensing of medical schools didn't exist, then the health care would be much further advanced and most assuredly less expensive than we can imagine.
It is ONLY because of government intervention that our medical system is corrupted and expensive. Milton Friedman has written extensively on this matter.
It must somehow be made clear and foremost to people that the primary cause of the health care "crisis" is government. Look at how the quality of education is going down while prices rise. Why for the past 30 plus years has College cost exceeded inflation? Simply, because of the government student loan program.
If health care is ever to be considered not a crisis then somehow mechanisms must be in place to transition government (states/fed) completely out of health care.
“Nonsense. Every other provider of luxury goods and services in the world appears to be able to do quite well servicing <15% of the market. I haven’t noticed Ferrari or Louis Vuitton losing all incentive to continue in business.”
Sure. And the development cost for a ferrari is minimal when compared to a new drug or innovative invention in the medical field. It is pretty easy to spread a couple of billion dollar investment for a new car or yacht over the top 15% of the GLOBAL market. It is impossible to spread the TRILLION or so for new medical advances over the top 15% of the US market!
Then in your next statement you say, “What will happen, of course, is that with a smaller pool of money available, fewer new technologies will be developed and implemented that would otherwise be the case.”
Thus, you prove the point. How is it a “slight” negative impact when the government CREATES a barrier to unfettered innovation? It is an extremely negative impact that will cause the deaths of millions who would have otherwise been offered life saving drugs or procedures that became possible because of new equipment.
What market will exist after our free market is gone (like we had one) that will reward medical development? The answer is NONE!
“A long line for service is an improvement over no service.”
Except for those that WILL die while waiting in line. For them it is not any improvement at all. A long line is nothing more than an indicator that some in that line are going to experience the shortage. Many will die while waiting for the service, others will give up and live with pain, etc.
Think of the gas lines of the 70’s. Nixon capped prices, that created a “cheap” source of gasoline at the local gas station. So, people did not curtail their own behaviour and they burned gas freely. Then we got to experience waiting in lines every other day to buy the few gallons that became available. Many in those lines went home without being able to purchase any gas....Yep, price caps worked great for the elite rulers.
“I didn’t say “the poor” would receive the best available health care, only that for many of them it will be better than what they presently have available to them.”
Either way you try to word it, your assumption is not true. The free market may create “larger” gaps between the very rich and the poor, but it also enhances the lifestyle of the poor to become some of the richest in the world. When you centrally plan, you will degrade their life conveniences and that will not magically change because the subject is health care. When the motivation for innovation is destroyed, then you will see the ENTIRE industry degrade. Over time, and I suspect it will not take long to see the effect in this case, you will see a complete destruction of our system.
Add to that the fact that NOT ONE of our poor are denied health care in our market pre-obamacare. So, we have no one being denied care and we WILL see a degredation in care. Which is better? Let’s look at it this way, a poor person who had no insurance now has insurance, yet it is very expensive to keep them hospitalized for a long time to deal with a bad infection in a limb. We could spend a lot on drugs and a hospital bed with constant care for a few weeks or heck, let’s just chop that limb off and get it over with quickly!
Which would you say the government will chose? Which do you think the individual will chose? Which is a better quality of life long term?
“The idea that any government-run health system will result in worse outcomes for every group is just the flip side of the idiocy put out by proponents that outcomes will improve for every group while costs still go down.”
Not true. The idea that central planning of health care WILL cause a degredation of the entire health care industry is a proven fact. EVERY example shows it to be true. Every example in EVERY industry proves it to be true. Off the top of my head I can not think of one industry that has advanced as a whole in any centrally planned government. I’d be interested to hear about any example that you can provide.
Sure, East Germany was an auto giant, well at least until the wall came down. Mao’s china was spectacular, well after they killed off a few million folks. North Korea is a bastion of utopia today, except for those that starve to death every year. Zimbabwe has been great for black farmers, but moved from the breadbasket of Africa a wasteland. On and on and on and on and on....
Make no mistake about it, Obamacare is not going to improve the health care industry. The masterminds know this and they have no intention of improving the industry. They are simply interested in control over you (and him and me and her.) If they are in control of you, your behaviour and your choices, then they can create their much desired utopia.
They just need more time.