The result is a broken economy that works for profiteers but not for "consumers."
Intermediaries make people angry when they exploit the system without adding value. People are outraged over the EpiPen scandal because they know that its manufacturer jacked up prices excessively, which it can do thanks to government-granted patent privileges. Patients are likely to die as a result.
Similarly, people are outraged over UnitedHealth's profits because they know that UnitedHealth has never cured a sick child or mended a broken arm. But it has denied patients potentially lifesaving treatments (yielding only when faced with bad publicity).
For-profit health financing has failed this nation. Here's a thought experiment:
Imagine an America where food costs twice as much as it does in most other developed countries.
Imagine an America where most Americans under the age of 65 get their food from a "food intermediary" chosen by their employer.
Imagine an America where the "food intermediary" can deny people access to lifesaving nourishment.
Imagine an America where corporate food distributors are granted special privileges by the government, then grossly overcharge customers who must either pay up or die.
Imagine an America where the out-of-pocket cost of food is rising much faster than inflation.
Imagine an America where a minimum of 45,000 people die each year because of inefficiencies in our food economy.
Would people across the political spectrum be saying that food is a right that's being corrupted by profit? Absolutely. And they'd be right.
Full stop.
Rights and commerce aren't diametrically opposed. Want to enjoy the national parks that are every American's birthright? You'll probably take a for-profit airline to get there, and stay in a for-profit hotel once you arrive. Want to exercise your right of free speech? You may take out a full-page ad in a for-profit newspaper. (There is a problem with media consolidation and free speech, but that's a topic for another day.)
Rights and commerce can coexist in a democratic society, as long as commerce doesn't threaten rights. But when they clash, commerce must give way. Since commerce has failed to provide affordable and accessible health care, it must yield to rights.
Here's a cold, quantifiable truth some people would rather not accept: Government does some things better than the private sector. Health care financing happens to be one of them. That's why every other developed nation on earth provides better care to more of its people at lower cost than we do.
McArdle snipes at Great Britain's health system because its guidelines sometimes limit treatment. She doesn't mention that our system does, too. But our guidelines are set by highly paid executives who aren't accountable to the public, and whose economic self-interest lies in restricting care.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
