Today NPR had two long-time doctors on the show talking about their experiences.  Towards they end of the interview, they asked one what he would do about the health care system. 

He said he wanted a single payer system implemented.  They didn't bleep it out or nothing.  Usually i only expect to hear phrases like "single payer" on DFH sites like DailyKommie and CommunistUnderground [1].  To top it off, the other guest (who is customerally, the counterpoint), brought up the spectre of rationing....but not as a boogie man, just to say, that private insurances should still be available for those denied procedures.  (I find it funny to think that private insurers will be more lenient with their benefits, but i guess if you pay enough).

Oddly enough they didn't explain what single payer was, (i can't imagine everyone knows all the buzzwords).  Maybe that's what NPR thinks of as balance.

Or maybe the media is liberal...i guess we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of angry mail complaining that they had two doctors on instead of a more balanced story with one doctor and one cold-hearted SOB.
     


[1] just in case: sarcasm

From the TPM front page:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking earlier this month on Fox News, called President Obama's plan the "first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known." A public option, Shelby added, would "destroy the marketplace for health care."

I'm pretty sure this is completely false.  The first statement is laughable, and most everyone has a first-hand example of how the health care system has failed them.  The second statement is also false.  Obama has gone to great pains to ensure that there is a place in his plan for private health insurers,  (much to the consternation of some of us).

But let's assume for a moment, that it will destroy the marketplace.   

Marketplaces are good for a few reasons: (eventually finding) efficient allocation of resources, a mechanism for consumer feedback, etc[1].  Markets will exist whether or not they are government sanctioned.  Government enforcement of consumer protections and contracts between private parties helps lessen the risk for market participants, but even without those protections black markets thrive.

However, there are markets which the government not only doesn't sanction, but actively seeks to destroy.  One example is the market for people and in particular child prostitution.  We all agree that even though we like free markets, we like personal liberty more, and we believe that slavery is immoral, and children should be protected above all.

Markets, like governments, are good only in as much as they serve the people; they are not an end onto themselves.  The core principle underlying it is the idea people should have as much freedom from government interferance as is possible.  Buying and selling goods and services is one of those things that people do with their freedom, and markets are created and nurtured as a consequence.  But the People ultimately define the terms under which the market operates.

If there is a choice between a health care marketplace and the health of the population, i think it is clear which we need to choose.  If the market is a detriment to society, then something should be changed.

There is surely a danger in a system which is controlled from the top down (a planned economy, although one might be tempted to compare the current system to a top down control by various health care companies).  Markets are a good way to deal with that danger, but they're not the only one. 

Our lives would be a lot easier if we could say, free market always, or command economy only.  It takes away all the hard thinking and the difficult choices about trade-offs between competing interests.  Everything can be reduced to slogans and chants. 

The foundations of our government though are built on the idea of striking the right balance [2], and it is a tradition we should continue.   

In anycase, the demand for the current kind of healthcare marketplace has hit rock-bottom in the meta-marketplace of marketplaces.  Except for antiques collectors and afficianodos of kitsch no one is buying.  There are better products on the market.

[1] I have no poli-sci or economics credentials and it shows.
[2] For example, The Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution, the bicameral legislature with split responsibilities, separate but nominally equal branches, etc.