The 'Costs' of Medical Care: Part III

· Thursday, November 5, 2009

One of the strongest talking points of those who want a government-run medical care system is that we simply cannot afford the high and rising costs of medical care under the current system.

First of all, what we can afford has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of producing anything. We will either pay those costs or not get the benefits. Moreover, if we cannot afford the quantity and quality of medical care that we want now, the government has no miraculous way of enabling us to afford it in the future.

If you think the government can lower medical costs by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse," as some Washington politicians claim, the logical question is: Why haven't they done that already?

Over the years, scandal after scandal has shown waste, fraud and abuse to be rampant in Medicare and Medicaid. Why would anyone imagine that a new government medical program will do what existing government medical programs have clearly failed to do?

If we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs now, how can we afford to pay for doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical drugs, in addition to a new federal bureaucracy to administer a government-run medical system?

Nothing is easier for politicians than to rail against the profits of pharmaceutical companies, the pay of doctors and other things that have very little to do with the total cost of medical care, but which can arouse emotions to the point where facts don't matter. As former Congressman Dick Armey put it, "Demagoguery beats data" in politics.

Economics and politics confront the same fundamental problem: What everyone wants adds up to more than there is. Market economies deal with this problem by confronting individuals with the costs of producing what they want, and letting those individuals make their own trade-offs when presented with prices that convey those costs. That leads to self-rationing, in the light of each individual's own circumstances and preferences.

Politics deals with the same problem by making promises that cannot be kept, or which can be kept only by creating other problems that cannot be acknowledged when the promises are made.

Price controls are a classic example. At various times and places, in countries around the world, price controls have been put on any number of goods and services-- going all the way back to the days of the Roman Empire and ancient Babylon.

Price controls create lower prices for open and legal transactions-- but also black markets where the prices are higher than they were before, because the risks of punishment for illegal activity has to be compensated. Price controls also lead to shortages and quality deterioration.

But politicians who take credit for lower prices blame all these bad consequences on others. Diocletian did this in the days of the Roman Empire, leaders of the French Revolution did this when their price controls on food led to hungry and angry people, and American politicians denounced the oil companies when price controls on gasoline led to long lines at filling stations in the 1970s. It is the same story, whatever the country, the times or the product or service.

The self-rationing that people do when prices are free to convey the inherent impossibility of any economy to supply as much as everybody wants is replaced, under price controls, with rationing imposed by government, which cannot possibly have the same knowledge of each individual's circumstances and preferences-- least of all when it comes to medical care, where patients differ in innumerable ways.

Here, as elsewhere, there is no free lunch-- even though politicians get elected by promising free lunches. A free lunch in medical care is one of the most dangerous illusions of all.

Waiting in long gasoline lines at filling stations was exasperating back in the 1970s, but waiting weeks to get an MRI to find out why you are sick, and then waiting months for an operation, as happens in countries with government-run medical systems, can be not only painful but dangerous.

You can be dead by the time they find out what is wrong with you and do something about it. But that will "bring down the cost of medical care" because you won't be around to require any.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Aaron Stovall

They can't eliminate waste, fraud and abuse; those are the three branches of Government.

Thanks again, Dr. Sowell, for "confusing the issue" with facts, logic, and history.

Posted November 5, 2009 at 1:08:52 AM


MichaelSSEC

So refreshing to read an article full of facts, logic, reason and reality. It's baffling to try and discuss this issue (or any issue, really) with the Left because no matter how gamely they begin, the facts simply don't support their arguments so the whole thing quickly degenerates into arguing with a 3-year old. Their whole point of view amounts to nothing more than "I WANT IT NOW!" It's really quite dismaying.

Posted November 5, 2009 at 12:20:43 PM


Spiff

Medical expenses...I am 73 and have both Private Health Insurance and am covered by Medicare. I went to my primary physician with severe stomach cramps about 2 months ago, spent about 15-20 minutes with him before he sent me to a specialist. I got a copy of the bill submitted to my Primary and to Medicare and was appalled that he had charged $165.00 for that very short, no aid, no prescriptions,only a referral. What audacity I thought, to charge so much for such a short visit...I wasn't until I talked to 2 other physicians that I learned that they HAD to charge $165hr to get ANY payment from Medicare. If this is true at the doctors office, it must be also true at the hospitals - it isn't the medical care system that is broken, it's the Government forcing high costs on the system...

Posted November 9, 2009 at 2:18:19 PM


David S Krueger, CLU

Whenever politics is involved in making medical decisions for a single payor system you will have a plan in trouble. A politician will want more benefits for their constituitants so they get that benefit mandated. This drives up cost every time which hurts the plan. If they can't raise the premiums the plan gets in trouble as is Social Security, medicare and medicaid. A private company, on the other hand, can say no because they don't have the ability to raise fees to satisfy customers because the customer will go to another company that is less expensive. I don't think politicians care because all they want is to get re-elected.

Posted January 13, 2010 at 3:55:12 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund