I hope so. I know lots of people who need affordable healthcare. But I'm not holding my breath.
According to Jeffrey Tucker:
What does failure mean? The most obvious was the exploding
healthcare.gov website that in the first day of operation only managed
to enroll six people in the program. Looking through the notes from the
war room, one observes all the troubles that every highly ambitious and
poorly constructed website has: tangled databases, bad connections,
leaky memory explosion, mixed-up authentication rules, and about a
thousand other things.
Will it be fixed? Possibly. But at what price? To prepare the site, the
feds have already spent some $600 million and deployed a dud. More than
twice that sum will be spent on repair, but with what results? If the
site follows the usual government pattern, it will only work as long as
it is frozen in time. It can’t adapt to change and will become
antiquated in only a few years, and will thereby require other massive
infusions to keep up.
A government-run website is the digital-age equivalent of the failure
of government to run factories and farms in the 1920s and 1930s. Under
socialism, it was true that with enough force and money, even Soviets
could produce trucks, grain, and bombs. But every economic decision
involving physical resources and time requires trade-offs: If you do
this, you are not doing that. The real question is, at what cost? Lenin
made some progress in electrification even while major parts of the
newly socialized Russia were experiencing famine.
Likewise, healthcare.gov has become a costly symbol of a wider system failure.
The website can and probably will be fixed—but will the program itself
achieve its aims? The ACA promised to retain existing health-insurance
coverage and then expand it. Upon implementation, the ACA immediately
and dramatically reduced coverage by forcing many individually provided
healthcare plans to be dropped. Otherwise, most are experiencing sticker
shock.
In many cases, mandated coverage of new ailments made continued service
economically unfeasible. In other cases, existing plans were suddenly
outside the law. For example, the government said that plans must cover
outpatient care, emergency room visits, lab tests, hospitalization,
maternity, preventative services, pediatric services, prescription
drugs, and much more. If the plan didn’t, it was essentially declared
illegal and had to be cancelled.
In other words, the companies who dropped millions from the rolls were
merely complying with the law. They were obeying government diktat. That
few people expected this outcome reveals the true nature of government
planning. Two lessons emerge from the mess: Planners cannot account for
all contingencies and/or they must lie to get what they want.
Then came the doubling—in some cases tripling—of premiums of many
individual plans because of the requirement that insurers take no
account of pre-existing conditions, which is a bit like requiring that
auto insurers cover drunk drivers who are training for NASCAR.
It is very easy after the fact to look at any government failure and
point to all the reasons why the failures should have been anticipated
and thereby prevented. But remember that this is knowledge gained after
the fact. Before the trial, there are a million possible contingencies,
and it is not possible for anyone to prepare for them all. That’s why
markets specialize in embedding trial and error as a feature of the
system. A market system learns over time, copying success and avoiding
failure. Governments are terrible at this. They build, release, and
forget about it—with very little ongoing adaptation.
After the disaster took place, some politicians immediately responded
by saying: Make it illegal to stop dropping coverage. This response
piles error on error. It amounts to a form of nationalization of already
cartelized companies—another step away from the market and toward fully
socialized healthcare. Of course, those who’ve always called for a
single-payer system won’t mind—even as it will turn U.S. healthcare into
a Brezhnevian breadline. (Read more.)
(Via
A Conservative Blog for Peace.)
Share
1 comment:
The day when Big Gov't. cared about the ordinary citizen and worked for and in favor of the ordinary citizen has long since passed. There is never money for social programs but there is money for Government boondogles and bailouts....and we have no voice because our reps are too busy listening for ways to line their pockets.
Post a Comment