Financial news

Once Again the Basic Problems With Government Healthcare For All

By  | 

Via Economic Policy Journal

At the post, Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary as a Healthcare Socialist, a commenter writes:

I believe in “medicaid” for all. It is the one and only socialistic thing I believe in. Care for the sick and needy and destitute should be a social thing imho. Absolutely free healthcare for all paid for by property taxes (real estate). If you’re living high on the hog as a rich ass on the hill in your multi-million dollar mansion, you can have your property taxes pay for the healthcare of the poor and needy and destitute. If its based on property taxes and it is all the same rate of tax for all real estate property owners. Everyone having a little skin in the game to help each other is a good thing. Taxes would only be assessed based on actual costs so it would be adjusted year to year, and would go down if society becomes healthier.

With great wealth comes great responsibility.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, what lefties don’t seem capable of doing, and government healthcare for all is a lefty position, is to think beyond the surface about policy:

 A long-time contention of mine is that lefties are not very deep thinkers. They react to what is in front of them and do not think of long-term consequences.

The problem is not about “Everyone having a little skin in the game to help each other is a good thing,”  but that when any sector is put under control of the government, it becomes an immediate target for the worst to gain control of the sector and it eliminates the private sector signals and consumer desires that make the sector efficient .

Creating a central power target for the worst in society to takeover just destroys a sector. And healthcare for all is nothing but creating a central power to control healthcare.

It would eliminate free market competition.

It would suffocate innovation.

It would distort prices as signals.

It would end up favoring the rich and those connected to power.

It would result in extremely limited quality and quantity of services and products available for the masses.

This is basic economics 101.

So those who call for government healthcare for all are not helping the poor, they are dooming the poor (and most others) to miserable inefficient high-cost healthcare.

If one opposes government interference elsewhere in the economy, why would one be in favor of it in the healthcare sector, unless one really doesn’t understand the true problems with government central planning in the first place?


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hold dit netværk orienteret

READ ALSO  Institutional ingredients for China's resilience