What if government ran our hospitals, but left it to consumers to pay for the services?
Before you jump me for supporting socialistic medicine, let me suggest the goal is to come up with the best health-care system, regardless which of the two boxes it fits in, socialistic or capitalistic.
And, let me note it can be argued that a true socialistic system, the person doesn't pay the bills, the government does. We can't afford that. America is $20 trillion in debt. The government cannot afford to pay everyone's medical bills.
So, let the citizens pay their own bills.
Now, let me also suggest that as I set down to write this, I am only exploring what the proposal would mean. I believe if we want to make the right choices, we have to consider the options. We cannot just reject something without giving anymore thought to it than to say it is socialistic. Instead, we should say, "Here's what will happen, and here's why can or cannot do this," with little regard to whether it is socialistic.
Truth matters more than labels.
So, what would happen? Would we lose some incentive for medical advancements? I consider that we might. An individual is inclined to want acclaim and profit. Those are incentives. In terms of developing new medicines, new devices, and improved techniques, it helps if the person is able to see something for himself (or herself) in it.
What about ownership of a business? Doesn't that give you a sense of pride, and a desire to excel? Aren't you, for example, more inclined to do everything it takes to succeed if the venture is your own? I suggest you are.
But, note that most people are employees. Whether they are working for the government or for a private entity, their incentive to do well is about the same. I note that there are two types of people, those who seek to do well, and those who seek only to put in the hours in order to get their paychecks. They would sit back and read a book while at work, if they could -- and they sometimes do.
And, here is the big question: Which provides a better way to keep costs down -- private or government? Under a private system, competition can drive prices down, but greed can drive them up. So, if you can harness competiveness while controlling greed, private enterprise might work.
A government ran system has the advantage of setting prices. It can look at the expenses in an MRI, and simply say, "It doesn't cost $2500, so we aren't going to pay $2500. One hundred dollars is all you'll get."
But, a government system can also be blind. People just interested in pulling their paychecks aren't inclined to hold prices down. They seek the easy way out, and often that has nothing to do with keeping costs down.
Well, it is late for bed, and I can see this is not an overly polished blog, or at least not one written in an interesting fashion.
I do end with a tentative conclusion (if you will pardon the contradiction of terms). Government-ran systems might do well once we have celestial people. Good people will seek to do good regardless. Ordinary and imperfect people, however, need financial incentives and incentives such as glory and honor.
A socialistic system might do well in a celestial society, but a capitalistic system might be necessary as long as society clings to traits of laziness and pride.
No comments:
Post a Comment