Is a capitalist approach to health care more efficient w/ better quality than a national single payer system?

Answer 1

Of course. Market forces always produce better quality for lower prices than a Government monopoly.

Answer 2

Without a doubt. Competition and profit provide the impetus for giving the people what they want and need at fair market prices. It encourages the reward for excellence and punishment for failure. It promotes better use of available resources and efficiency. All of the problems with the current health care system are directly attributable to decades of Government regulation and interference. The more involved the bureaucracy the less efficient and the more expensive everything becomes.

Can anyone name a single instance where a government bureaucracy proved to do any job better than private enterprise?

I have recently reviewed the Constitution. I see no "right" to health care at all let alone free health care. Poor people already have government programs. Some people do not have insurance. That is their choice. I don't have a new car and I have to do most of the repairs, improvement and maintenance of my house myself but I have health insurance.

.

Answer 3

Each has pros and cons, and it depends on your definition of efficiency. In the pure capitalist system, costs will be determined solely by supply and demand. The people who can pay get better, faster service, and the ones who can't get worse, or no service. So if your standard of efficiency means "everyone gets treated when they need to be", then system is not more efficient. However, there will be no rationing and doctors will get paid what they think they deserve, and taxes will be quite low. In general, the healthcare workers will be happier and more productive.

The single payer system is more efficient in the sense that everyone is in theory supposed to get the care they need regardless of their ability to pay, but less efficient in providing the services. By that I mean the staff will be less motivated since their salaries will be capped, and some services will be rationed since government is bad at anticipating supply and demand. For example, you might need a life-saving operation, but since there are not enough doctors to perform it, you might be put on a waiting list and die before it can be performed. There are also the problems with high taxes, and "brain drain" where the best doctors leave to go to countries where they will be paid more.

So really, it comes down to your priorities. Do you want a system where everyone is treated equally, but everyone has to wait longer and put up with less happy healthcare workers? Or do you want a system where you get the best level of care for the amount you are willing to pay?

Answer 4

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.

Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).

Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.

Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents and false government.

Answer 5

Only if you have loads of money.

However if you're in the majority that doesn't, then no. A publicly funded health care system, free at the point of entry allows for fewer duplications in services, costs less than having to buy health insurance and means that you can get treatment no matter what your background or economic circumstances. That's why every country in the developped world with the exception of the US has a publicly funded health care system.

Answer 6

Yes because it encourages investment and advancement. A nationalized system discourages investment, and makes the advancement of the market predictable. In worse case scenarios, the health care market stagnates when no incentives for advancement are provided.

Answer 7

I refer to insurance as VOLUNTARY socialism.
It is the best way to deal with paying for health care. The Insurance industry needs understandable regulation and warning labels pointing out what a policy does NOT cover.
Then citizens can CHOOSE what type of coverage they think is appropriate for them. - And at what price.

Answer 8

Anything, is better than letting the government get involved in the decision making process.

Answer 9

Usually that is so, but it is only better if you have insurance and are wealthy, why should the poor not be able to get quality health care?

Answer 10

If you can reasonably expect to afford it for a prolonged period of time . . .