Yesterday, I wrote about my experiences with free-ish market healthcare. Let's balance that against the ongoing demands for "single-payer" government healthcare. The promise is it would lower costs and bring more freedom, right?
In order to do that, new bureaucracy will need to be established. New taxes will need to be imposed. New standards for care will be created out of thin air. And everyone will probably need a new government-issued ID card. All of this creates a new dependence on politicians for an essential service, and removes choice from the equation. It can't possibly produce more freedom, no matter what is promised.
How can bureaucrats know what is in your best interest? How do they know where money is best spent, what needs to be provided,? Are they immune to bias, error, and greed? When have governments ever met budget forecasts? In the US, Social Security is deep in the red. The VA has a a bad track record. Medicare/Medicaid create hassles for everyone in the medical industry. School budgets have ballooned and bureaucracies have grown exponentially while educational outcomes have declined through every reform effort.
This is not to defend the status quo of corporate insurance. That industry is rife with corruption and political collusion in complete opposition to laissez-faire free market principles. However, this in no way discredits the free market. Remember, the market means choice. It also requires taking a measure of personal responsibility, though, and I suspect many people prefer to delegate those responsibilities to others.
I do know any people will dismiss my concerns, but why can't people form a voluntary version of socialized medicine for members, is there? Nothing should prevent people from choosing to support charitable causes, right? If the ideas of socialism are so good, why must they be imposed, and why can't people demonstrate it on a small scale with willing participants?