This article talks about how inefficient the US health care system is.
It is well-known that health care takes up a lot of government deficits and as it stands, the costs have not produced as efficiently as in other countries.
The author provides two solutions:
1.) Make the industry more competitive with a voucher system
2.) Make it government run.
The 1st would technically lead to a cheaper and more efficient health care system since higher competition would mean lower prices. However, there is always the risk, especially when lives are concerned, that without regulation, profit-seeking will override patient-saving.
The 2nd option will for sure lead to lower prices because the government will fix it, but many point out that we will have a much worse health care system since many smart minds will not go into medical schools anymore due to much lower incentives.
I prefer the 1st, since there is no guarantee that the government, so heavily influenced by the health care industry anyways through lobbying, will lead to a more patient-saving type of industry than a competitive voucher system.
I agree with your conclusion with the voucher system. There are many other things that must be taken into consideration. For one, the waiting lists for government- run health care system would greatly increase looking at the example set by Canada.
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of countries which have a better system,
ReplyDeletethere is an option for both private and public healthcare system and insurance...
however none of this is a necessity unlike in this country, where the govt makes insurance mandatory but doesnt provide it...
In my view, either way will not totally solve the problem. The first one could be a better solution, but some rules still need to be made in this condition. Competitive market would definitely bring the price level down and actually stimulus economy. In order the supervise this free market, more laws and more inspection system need to be executed by government. Combining these two ways might be more effective than either one alone.
ReplyDelete