We Stand FIRM
FIRM Home
Blog Home
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
Twitter: WeStandFIRM

Contributors
Lin Zinser
Ari Armstrong
Diana Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
E-mail all the bloggers

Blogroll
Principles in Practice
Capitalism Magazine
Patient Power
Medpolitics
Concierge Medicine MD
ReasonPharm
Health Care BS
Free Market Cure
KevinMD
John Goodman
Junkfood Science
Covert Rationing
NCPA Digest
Socialized Medicine
State House Call
Big Gov Health
WSJ Health Blog
Medical Progress Today
Derek Lowe
AFCM
Free Colorado
WASH
Heal Spiel
Health Policy Action Center
Lucidicus Project

Articles/Essays:

"Health Care Is Not A Right"
"FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance"
More Articles/Editorials

FIRM Debates Universal Healthcare on Opposing Views


Archives
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
 Tuesday, March 17, 2009
More Problems In Massachusetts
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:05 AM PermaLink

The March 16, 2009 New York Times article "Massachusetts Faces Costs of Big Health Care Plan" discusses the new controls that Massachusetts state government will impose on doctors, hospitals, and insurers in order to salvage their failing "universal health care system".

Costs are continuing to skyrocket out of control despite a round of new taxes. Hence, the article notes:
The very stakeholders who were coaxed into the tent -- doctors, hospitals, insurers and consumer groups -- would probably have been driven into opposition by efforts to reduce their revenues and constrain their medical practices, they said.
"Constraining" how doctors practice basically means the government overriding a doctor's judgment as to how to treat his patients. It interposes the bureaucrat into the doctor-patient relationship in order to save costs.

The end of this road will be government rationing, just as in the UK where the government explicitly says that it won't pay for treatments if it costs too much.

Advocates of universal health care often criticize free market medicine on the grounds that we "can't put a price on human life". But it is the government-controlled medical systems that actually do put a price on life. In such systems, patients can only hope that their government doesn't consider their own lives too expensive to save.

The answer to skyrocketing costs is not a government takeover of health care, but rather the free market. As we've seen with cellphones and computers, the free market drives down costs and improves quality.

Similarly, the sectors of medicine such as LASIK eye surgery which are the most free (i.e., least controlled by the government) show the same pattern of falling costs and rising quality over time. This can and should be the norm in all of medicine.

(For more on the problems with Massachusetts' system of universal health care, see the DC Examiner piece "Universal coverage? First, look at the disaster in Massachusetts" and my Objective Standard piece, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America".)

Labels: ,

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis