But…but…but, England and Health Care, or Something

Saturday 24 July 2010 - Filed under Economy + health care

I love it when people insist that we should go to a socialized health care system because of how well it works in England. The New York Times:

Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

[. . .]

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

Decentralization should also be read as partial desocialization, as centralized consolidation is a key facet in any truly socialist system.

2010-07-24  »  madlibertarianguy