If your state government took over health care for all its residents would this be economically efficient?

Question

Do you think it is a good idea or not?

Answer 1

No, because it would cost too much. They are trying to get it passed. All the government does is make things complicated and difficult. People wait months in Canada for rationed care. People die while waiting to get what they need.

Answer 2

Anytime you centralize medical costs, and insulate people from the true price of the care they're receiving, it's a recipe for trouble.
More people will use the same amount of health care resources, more often.
Economics, in any realm, deals with one central human dilemma: unlimited wants, limited resources, and how do we best go about trying to satisfy those unlimited wants.
As a society, we have to decide, preferably sooner rather than later, who pays for what... we really do have socialized medicine here, with huge redistributions of wealth in both the private and public sectors.
It is so, so easy for politicians to say "let's make health care more accesssible/affordable" but so difficult to start handing out the bills for that.
If the state covers everything, then it's ultimately the taxpayers that foot the bill.
If the state forces employers to provide low-deductible care, then those employers pay the bill.
If the state says, "Every doctor can only charge $15 per office visit, and clinical labs can only charge $60 for a full set of panels" then those doctors and labs are funding our health care out of their own pockets, and guess what? The incentives to become or be a doctor, or open up a diagnostic lab all but disappear.
Always, always remember the law of unintended consequences...

Answer 3

It is a terrible idea. Look at my current home state of Tennessee. The liberal Al Gore thought it would be a good idea to have a socialized program for the poor. It has failed miserably. It is at the point that this failed social experiment has almost single-handedly bankrupted the state. This is something that the Federal government should look at very closely before trying this on a national level. It just doesn't work.

Answer 4

Take a look at Federal and State governments and you'll find your answer.

Governments are, by their nature, bloated, inefficient creatures populated by thousands of excess and inefficient workers.

The free market, on the other hand, is inherently biased against inefficiency.

States that control automobile insurance premiums, for example, have considerably higher insurance prices than those that allow the free market to set the prices.

Answer 5

no the government has no clue how to handle money or the problems of health care or anything else for that matter , for example taking over schools , there soloution is throwing money at it , schools do not need money they need to learn how to teach a younger generation and be able to get on there level , only then would the drop out rates change , money and government is not the answer , the answer is accountability and management .