Robert Gentel wrote:
1) It seems pretty clear to me (apologies to her if I get it wrong): This public service would lower health care costs and expand health care coverage.
I think this premise is false. To my knowledge, no economist who has looked at health care is claiming that there is significant market failure in providing healthcare, as opposed to providing health insurance. Therefore, government-operated health care providers (like doctors, hospitals, rehab clinics, etc.) would not
be cheaper than privately operated ones. Just as government-operated farms wouldn't produce cheaper food than privately operated ones. (That's the reason I made that comparison.)
The same is not
true of health insurance, because of the problem with adverse selection that I mentioned before. Which is why my solution would be to expand Medicare to everyone who wants it, and leave the rest of the system unchanged except for technical upgrades. (Open, uniform standards for electronic medical records would be an example for such a technical upgrade.)
It is true that FreeDuck's and McGentrix's proposal would expand coverage -- but so would a subsidy for those people who couldn't afford the Medicare-for-all plan I propose.
Okay, so the bottom line is that I don't object to FreeDuck's logic, I object to the premise that goes into FreeDuck's logic. Government-employed doctors, government-operated hospitals, etc., would not
necessarily run more efficiently than privately operated ones.