As long as the future of Obamacare is still undecided, we still have time to discuss alternatives. The debate thus far appears to center on how much government subsidies should be included in the final package. Today we look again at how much government involvement is necessary (rather than how much can we afford) to achieve our national goals. With a $20 trillion national debt, a “government lite” approach seems to be in order.
So, let’s look again at what a truly free market healthcare system might really look like — without the hang-ups of past assumptions.
(This column is edited from a version originally published on January 6, 2017. Unfortunately, we haven’t progressed very far since then. )
As always, comments welcome. Thank you for your support.
What a free-market health care system could look like
By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Friday, January 6, 2017
As long as we are repealing and replacing Obamacare, the starting point should be setting our goals. American health care should be:
1, High quality, state-of-the-art
2. Available to all — which means
What are the principal obstacles to these goals?
a. The first and most obvious obstacle is the shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets: not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and of those who do enter practice too many drop out before their time. There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.
The reason is lack of money