You seem to look at it the same way liberals look at welfare. Society is good when a lot of resources are devoted to, and a lot of people are helped by welfare. But Reagan pointed out fallacy of that argument when he pointed out that a good society is one where the fewest people need welfare.
Where private enterprise deems it worthwhile to commit resources to developing new medical breakthroughs, I'm fine with it because I believe society as a whole benefits from it.
I have a problem only when government interference gets in the way. Which it has done for years, of course -- but what is getting read to happen is a massive increase in the level of that interference.
I don't think that government ought to be involved in the health care business. But since it is, and irreversibly so, we should seek ways to improve the situation (thus the concept of government run clinics for the indigent to relieve pressure, and cost, to local ERs).
Ultimately, isn't a question of the extent to which health care is a "right"? My belief is that it is NOT a right, rather, it is something that government may elect to make available and it need not be the best in the world to make a significant improvement in many people's lives.
When you insist that the indigent receive the same level of care as the person who is gainfully employed, paying his way, then you change the entire dynamic IMO to something that is untenable, and you end up doing a disservice to those who truly need the help.
For $10B/y you could easily provide 250 fully-staffed medical clinics around the country, able to do 10M or more patient visits a year complete with generic prescription medications dispensed on the spot. This would eliminate the pressure on inner-city ERs (although, I'm doubtful as to whether all of them really want that) and generally provide better care for those who really just need routine medical care.
I would have no objection to this kind of government sponsored health care. But even that would likely turn into a train wreck over time. |
