The Other Cost of Single-Payer
If we each had a sawbuck for each time we heard that single-payer produces long waiting lines, we’d probably be able to retire. Glenn Reynolds rightly argues in this op-ed that that isn’t the biggest problem with going to a single-payer system:
But there’s another cost that isn’t getting enough attention. That’s the degree to which a bureaucratized healthcare system will squash medical innovation just as we reach a point where dramatic progress is possible. To see how important that is, I don’t have to look any farther than my own family.
Perhaps our medical history is more involved than most, but probably not by a lot. And yet many members of my family are living better, happier lives, or, heck, just living, because of medical innovations made in recent decades, innovations that probably wouldn’t have been made under a government-run health system. And as medical technology progresses by leaps and bounds, the next few decades are likely to see much greater progress, unless it’s throttled by bureaucrats.
When I covered the St. Cloud Health Care forumn that Sen. Tarryl clark hosted, I was astonished at how many people in the audience were single-payer activists. I felt like I was the only capitalist in the building. While there, I talked with someone from the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition. After the meeting, I returned home and visited their website. They had a study about the pros and cons of single payer by the American Medical Students Association or AMSA, which I wrote about here. This is what jumped out at me from AMSA’s study:
3. Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
That second sentence is a verification of the exact things that Glenn Reynolds is talking about. Without capital investments, there’s no incentive to create wonder drugs. There’s no incentive to create mobile MRIs. There’s just doing the same-old-same-old because technological advances simply won’t happen as frequently. Here’s something else that AMSA’s study ‘noted’:
5. There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
This isn’t rocket science. I asked a friend who’s also a businessman, other than making something illegal, what the best way was to get a business to stop doing something. His reply was predictable: the fastest way was to remove a profit motive.
When I participated in the first blogger conference call on health care, it was suggested that we should talk about the loss of freedom if single-payer was part of the legislation. That’s certainly a legitimate concern. Still, I suggested that the loss of innovation due to a dramatic downturn in profits would remove the quality from our current system.
Rep. John Fleming, (R-LA), is taking a wonderfully irreverent, yet serious approach to this debate:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
If the public option is such a good thing, let those voting for it lead by example. I suspect that these portraits in checking which way the political wind is blowing will say “Thanks but no thanks.” This Democrat administration and this Democrat-infested congress are finding out alot of voters are taking the Show Me approach to governance.
The bottom line is this: This Democratic administration and this Democrat-laden Congress know that the public option is junk. That’s proven by the Democrats’ unwillingness to accept what they’ll attempt to force down our throats.
Remember who wanted to take away the best health care product in the world when you step into that booth the first Tuesday in November, 2004. Right now, health care reform and growing the economy should be the only things that voters should be worrying about.
Technorati Tags: Reform, Health Care, Single Payer, Rationing, Technology, Public Option, Democrats, John Fleming, Republicans
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
July 13th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Not to mention that the TARP bills and cap and tax bill weren’t even read, or available to be read. Not only is the health care bill not yet read, it is not yet written! Trust the most transparent administration and Congress??? How about throw anyone voting for a bill not read go straight to prison for treason??? No trial needed!! Write the bill, read the bill and then be able to score a 95 or above on a bill content test before being allowed to vote on the bill??
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
SEW, there are some in Congress that haven’t read 1,000 pages total of anything since leaving high school, and probably more than one whose reading comprehension level wouldn’t allow them to understand what they were reading even if they tried to read a bill.
And I’m not talking just the bottom feeders here, either. Some of the leadership is in the same boat.