Re: Ho hum
Fair enough; it doesn't quite fit with the other services.
OTOH, I think that governments that provide healthcare do tend to have markedly better outcomes for any given level of spending. For example, the USA spends as much per capita as the UK, yet only gets medicare and mediaid, whereas the UK seems to get an entire healthcare system.
I know that economists all love Singapore, but if you ask those doctors who have worked there you find out that plenty of patients use up all their funds, then their families funds. Then a family member develops an acute leukaemia.... should they be punished for the original patient's profligacy?
I'd disagree that governments can only provide a minimal level of health care: I have seen world class care in the public system in various countries I have worked in, and the public system routinely bails out private healthcare when it gets too hard. (I should admit that the "world class care" is not as common as I'd like and patients deserve; I don't think it is all that common in the US private system either though...)
Finally, of those who cannot afford to pay for their own care as a result of bad luck (wrong parents), should they not receive appropriate levels of healthcare? (DOI: had the right parents. That's the reason for good grades, medical school, post grad exams, etc. If you think otherwise is normal I'm afraid that's naive.)
Biting the hand that feeds IT
