Lawyers that are also Doctors or just plain old Doctors sure sell medical treatments. As told how to by Lawyers that are Politicians and/or Lobbyists. Come on, its not that hard to grasp.
It's not.... That's not the problem... The problem is that there are people that just DON'T WANT to see it... Because taking responsability for one's own life is just too much for these people, they must believe this crap so that they can justify their living at other people's expense... That's a lost cause... "The worst blind man is the one that doesn't want to see."
Private sector; because socialized med is a TRAINWRECK==============================================================================
Both. You can't make that decision based on the quality of people who will carry out a particular function because there is no difference on that basis. The decision has to be based on where best the function fits. Somethings, because of their nature, are best suited to the private sector, others should be handled by government. In general, when prices are inherently inelastic you need government to take over. For the market to operate as desired in a capitalist economy, price elasticity is required. We have examples where elasticity isn't as great as desired, but it is not due to inherent inelasticity. It is inelasticity born of regulatory capture, high entry barriers, etc. We can see, for example, both these elements at play in the cable and satellite TV retailing. If you were to judge by the advertising of Dish vs. Comcast, you would think that they were offering different pricing. But it is an illusion created by clever advertising. On close examination you would find only pennies difference in pricing for an equivalent product. Although real price elasticity in this case is an illusion, it is not inherent inelasticity, because you really can choose neither provider. Here the buyer can walk, and if enough buyers did walk, price elasticity would become evident. On the other hand, Medical Care pricing is highly inelastic, and inherently so. Of course, as everyone knows, it can vary tremendously with location, the patient's ability to pay and their insurance coverage. But that is not the kind of price elasticity I'm talking about. For any given situation in the Medical business, if the buyer is given a price, it is a take it or leave it price. The buyer can't walk! (sometimes that is literally the case ). We might in fact have a very difficult time pinning the provider down to a specific price! And if we did manage to get a firm price quote and then turned down the offer and walked away, the provider would not lower their price. Even if everyone, given the same price, walked away, the price would not come down. For a variety of reasons, we can't, practically speaking and in general, avail ourselves of a lower price elsewhere. That would be the case particularly for emergency care, but it is also true in general. We say, therefore, that medical care has inherent, inelastic pricing. Pricing will not respond in a normal way to supply and demand, and that's what makes medical care inherently a bad fit to the private sector.* There are also moral reasons why medical care should not be relegated to the private sector, but that is a different discussion altogether. __________________________ *I want to make it clear that when I write ",,,medical care is an inherently bad fit to the private sector," I am not taking a position on, nor am I advocating, totally socialized medicine, such as that offered by the VA Administration. There is little enthusiasm for totally socialized medicine in the United States, despite the inconsistent and inexplicable championing of the VA by those who are otherwise unalterably opposed to government involvement in medicine. Rather I mean to suggest as a remedy for lack of elasticity in medical pricing that the Government must be in charge of setting prices and standards and paying for medical care from tax revenue. Under such an arrangement Providers themselves would remain in the private sector. Accordingly, they would bill the government for services rendered. An example of such an arrangement is U.S. Medicare. One can easily envision variations and improvements on that same theme.
Simple comparisons like that are silly. You could probably argue that EU tax may even approach 80% if you beancount everything. In practice though, if you don't overspend, it's not hard to save up. A system where everyone gets a chance at college-level education, free healthcare (costs are miniscule when you need it) where you don't have to risk your health and life to avoid bankruptcy and being kicked on the street, kid support, lack of foodstamp coporate welfare and everything else we take for granted, yield overall lower costs and payback to society as a whole as well as less serious crime and violence. How do you get paid for all those extra hours at the company you work for again, or do you have 2-3 jobs to make enough money? Oh right, being taken advantage of is part of the dream. And when that money moves out of the country or everything is Uber'ized to the point taxidrivers can't be called taxidrivers and can't afford their own vehicles anymore, that's really a good thing! So basically, tradeoffs, depending on culture and what is accomplished as a whole, which is a tad different discussion than ego games and gains.