Though government schemes such as Medicare exist, the healthcare system in the U.S. is mostly privatized, using markets to distribute healthcare resources according to individual demand. However, many problems persist, including an effective monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry, primarily due to poor execution of patent laws and firms lobbying a government which holds far too much power to interfere in markets, which, much of the time, fare better if left to their own devices.
Conversely, suggesting in an assembly of a European government that markets should be utilized to distribute healthcare would be political suicide. Policy in these settings is dictated by the belief that healthcare is a human right, making any proposal for market-based solutions appear morally suspect. Even American proponents of a single-payer system seldom focus on efficiency, instead opting to frame any opponents to their ideals as driven solely by “profit” - a buzzword often used to discredit market systems. I propose that a market solution could distribute healthcare more efficiently than a government service such as the NHS. If predatory monopolies can be addressed, markets could reach an efficient allocation of healthcare resources, which is unlikely under government control, as that would necessarily lead to a public monopoly, or a monopoly propped up by government regulation and assistance, which, according to Milton Friedman, is far from desirable. Thus, the most moral and efficient way to distribute healthcare is through a market system and the notion that economists are committing a moral evil by opposing government monopolies of healthcare is unfounded.
No comments:
Post a Comment