Concepts About Funding and Competition In The Government vs Private Space - A Contradiction In Terms

Do you ever notice what is said about America's commitment to excellence in various areas?


EDUCATION - America has a majority of Government Operated Schools (Public Schools)
When activists compare our system of education with the rest of the world they make the case that we do not spend enough money on our Government Operated Schools.

When the idea of competition from private sources or alternative distribution of public schools (ie: Charter schools - which are still public schools) the activists are opposed to such competition with such a government like our educational distribution system.

HEALTH CARE - Today America has a private health care system for mainstream Americans - the American working class. Our tax payer financed system of health care is targeted at humans on the tail ends of life and/or targeted at the poor - the very young who are poor or the elderly who are retired and on a fixed income.

Get this - the attack on our present health care system is that we spend far more money than other nations around the world and our health outcomes are not as good. The solution, we are told, is to have the government to step into the market to compete with the private insurance companies by offering a "public option" to those who reside in the sweet spot for America's productivity engine - the working class. The private industry will be forced to become more efficient if the government is made a competitor.


DID YOU SEE THAT MAGIC TRICK?

Those who are responsible for stifling competition with the government operated school monopoly seek to have the government to go into the business of health care for the productive class to keep the private sector on its toes.

If you believe this - I have some beach front property in Arizona for you to consider. The VA Hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid are not "efficient". This is not about "efficiency". The only thing this is about is POWER and PRICE CONTROL. Just as Medicare has a cap on its fee for services paid to physicians, the Federal Democrats seek to do the same for the working class insurance program that they seek to hoist upon us. Today an increasing number of physicians are refusing to accept Medicaid patients because they service them at a loss. Those who do service them often have to increase the fees paid by patients with private insurance in order to balance everything out.

The goal is also to limit payments to pharmaceutical companies. When they say "we are spending too much money on health care" what they really are saying is "we are spending too much money on service providers, drugs and middle-man insurance companies". The claim is that if we remove the insurance companies from denying claims - more people will have access to health care. I beg to disagree.

All of this comes under the banner of "rationing". The argument is that today we ration health care based on income. Those who are not poor or elderly or have no private insurance are denied first rate health care. (They go to the emergency room and the government ultimately pays). In fact when they favorably compare Canada, France or the UK to America they are not comparing the quality of the standard of care. In truth there is a measure of the percentage of society that has access to health care coverage. Since America has this 47 million of uninsured individuals - this makes up the bulk of their criticism for these are the people who are 'left out of the system of care'.

My argument to the contrary is that a Single Payer Health Care System (More accurately called a "Multiple Taxpayer Paid Health Care System") does significant rationing as well. If I have a hospital that can service 1,000 patients per month the key difference between private versus public is clear. With the private insurance only the 1,000 with insurance will go through the front door. Those without insurance or who's claims have been denied will not pass through the front door.

With the government health care system - this same hospital still can only process 1,000 individuals per month. While a larger number of people will not be denied care - there exists a long line queued up outside of the hospital consisting of patient number 1,001 through some undermined number of others who wait for their "right to care" to be expressed.

This entire argument is not about radical reform. It is only about shifting the locus of control from a market of various interests over to a central "command and control" model where the federal government calls all the shots. With the checks being cut from 'central billing' you either accept their terms or you do not play.

Ironically Canada which is often referenced as the model for Single Payer Health Care efficiency was on the losing side of a citizen's lawsuit. Whereas private health care was made illegal under their plan a federal judge in Canada ruled that indeed a person has a right to procure private health care. I call this move a rational "norming" of a system that had swung too far to the left.

Unfortunately, various forces in the United States who's goal is to have a "Multiple Taxpayer Paid Health Care System" as their end goal would like nothing more than to do away with the existing private insurance companies. The USA is headed where Canada has already been yet were forced to "learn from the pitfalls" via this recent ruling.


I still struggle to understand the right that someone else has to control my private property as expressed via my health care dollars spent. The fact that people are without health insurance is not cause to nationalize an entire industry.

I support increasing the funding for existing government operated hospitals. Deploy "Single Payer Health Care" at the facility level, allowing private hospitals to continue unabated. If someone loses their private health care then their option is to receive service at the public hospital.