Here is single-payer health care in a nutshell:
1. People are forced to buy something that they don’t seem to want
2. Provided by a monopoly
3. Paid for by higher taxes
If you need a more nuanced discussion, follow the links at Tim Worstall, but I think my description pretty much sums it up.
Mar 23 2007
This essay by James McCormick is difficult to summarize. Here is a taste: To summarize my argument then, (1) our prosperity and peace is far ahead of most of the world and increasing, (2) we don’t appear to have enough human capacity for combat to fix the world by force, and (3) money currently extracted from produ...
Mar 23 2007
Senator Tom Coburn offers a market-oriented alternative. Under the Act, Americans would be eligible for a tax rebate to purchase health insurance. The “Medi-Choice” rebate would be made directly to a patient’s health insurer and would be worth $2,000. Families would receive a $5,000 tax rebate. The tax rebate w...
Mar 22 2007
Here is single-payer health care in a nutshell: 1. People are forced to buy something that they don't seem to want 2. Provided by a monopoly 3. Paid for by higher taxes If you need a more nuanced discussion, follow the links at Tim Worstall, but I think my description pretty much sums it up.
READER COMMENTS
John Booke
Mar 22 2007 at 8:08pm
Or
Here is current health care in a nutshell:
1. People are forced to buy something that they don’t need.
2. A monopoly of providers.
3. Paid for by higher insurance premiums.
R. S. Porter
Mar 22 2007 at 8:56pm
No, not really John.
Jody
Mar 22 2007 at 9:06pm
Actually, John may be correct for Mass under RomneyCare, but I don’t know if that was the situation he was referring to.
Andrew
Mar 22 2007 at 10:59pm
Under many employer group plans, the employee cannot opt out of coverage. In my state (and probably others), the empoyees can be required to pay however much of the premium cost the employer chooses to pass on, so long as it doesn’t reduce wages below the minimum wage rate.
I don’t know if that’s what John was talking about or not.
Josh
Mar 23 2007 at 5:01am
John, I don’t think ANYone has argued that the current system is optimal. The question is whether the current “monopoly of providers” as you call it should be replaced with a stronger monopoly or competition.
Lord
Mar 23 2007 at 3:45pm
1. something that is not available (insurance is poor substitute for lifetime care)
2. funded by a monoply (no need for a single supplier)
3. and lower fees
Nick
Mar 23 2007 at 5:03pm
you just described the fire department.
should we get rid of that?
Comments are closed.