My objection is primarily, as I’ve said numerous times, that the government will destroy innovation. It will do this by deciding what constitutes an acceptable standard of care, and refusing to fund treatment above that. It will also start controlling prices.
Now, at this point in the discussion, some interlocutor starts chanting what I’ve come to think of as “the mantra”: othercountriesspendlessandhavelongerlifespans. Then they ask me how I can ignore the overwhelming evidence that national health care is superior to our terrible system. Now, what’s odd about this is that all of those countries do precisely what I am concerned about: slap price controls on the inputs, particularly pharmaceuticals. Their overwhelming evidence indicates that I am 100% correct that a government run system in the US will destroy the last really profitable market for drugs and medical technology, and thereby cause the rate of medical innovation to slow to a crawl.
[. . .]
The things that make markets innovate — profit potential — have been mostly squeezed out of the system. The things that hasten market discover — prices — have also been increasingly relegated to central authority. Having something like that in the United States would produce exactly the outcome I’m worried about. So if Matt is right, and this is where the slippery slope ends up, my nightmare will have been realized.
Megan McArdle, “What Does It Mean To Have a Private Health Care System?”, Asymmetrical Information, 2009-08-13
August 15, 2009
QotD: The biggest risk in moving to a single-payer system
Filed under: Health, Quotations — Tags: Innovation, Insurance, SocializedMedicine — Nicholas @ 11:05
Comments Off on QotD: The biggest risk in moving to a single-payer system
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
