A quick post by Paul Krugman, which because it's him will be controversial with those who disagree with anything he says. But he's right on the money in my opinion:
Some readers ask why my argument that relatively centralized systems work better for health care than the “free market” isn’t an argument for government ownership of everything. The answer is that health care is different: it’s a sector in which basically every market failure you can think of takes place. And we’ve known that since Kenneth Arrow’s classic analysis half a century ago. It’s shocking, though not surprising, that we keep having to relearn this basic point.
I added a comment which highlight some of my own motivations driving this issue for me:
That health is better managed centrally seems blindingly obvious when I compare my experiences of the UK healthcare system with my life here in the US. My mother in the UK had cancer and was treated quickly, efficiently, in a new private room at a local hospital with a joined up system. She spent the total of 10 pounds (to pay for a TV subscription). My wife in the US had an 3 years ago accident, and despite the most platinum-plated insurance policy from her bulge bracket law firm, spends half her time chasing or being chased by insurance companies and trying to get one doctor to talk to another. It's a travesty and embarrassment from a country that is a beacon for so much else.
Remember healthcare is different because i) almost everybody wants to have as little of it as possible ii) the more in need of it the consumers are, the less capable they are of making their own decisions. Does that sound like any other consumer good? No, it sounds like market failure. We need a system that is optimized to keep people away from the hospitals and procedures - get them to avoid consuming if they possibly can. We need to focus on the promotion of proactive health, not encourage the over-consumption of reactive healthcare.
Sunday, December 18, 2011 at 11:44PM 