This author makes some interesting points that are not usually discussed this clearly.
One point is that the market for health care is not different and special and therefore best provided by the government, it is just another comodity.
Another point is that proponents of government health care value the population of uninsured more than the value of the efficiency of the system. In other words, if it could be proved that a private system that left some uninusred were more efficient than a public system which insured everyone less efficiently they would no be swayed.
Then she discussed three ways to measure if a transfer of funds from one group to another is moral:
1.
They are needy. The class we propose to benefit has greater need for the money than the class from whom we propose to take. 2.
It's not fair. The class we propose to benefit has been unluckier than the class from whom we propose to take.
3.
They are responsible. The class from whom we propose to take has in some way contributed to the problems we are trying to rectify.
She also defined the transfer in terms of who the money is coming from and who it is going to more clearly than is usually done, i.e. it comes from the young and the healthy and goes to the sick and the old.
She does backpeddal a bit when she says:
"There is indeed a very compelling moral argument to be made in favor of some sort of government sponsored health care finance, which is simply this: no one should die, or suffer unduly, because they don't have the money to pay for treatment."
I agree that a case can be made for not abandoning these people but resist the idea that any compelling case has been made for caring for these people through government mandated transfers.
I have not said what she said as well as she said it so I leave it to you to actually read what she said and either agree or dispute it.
Megan McArdle (August 21, 2007) - The morality of health care finance (Health care)
The Morality of Health Care Finance
Today
Sponsored Links
Linear Mode
