Hmm... I think this article is very interesting. The British health care system is moving in an opposite direction to the United States': while they are privatizing the health care industry, the US is slowly making it public. I think it also brings up an interesting point that the privatization virtually "turns public tax money into private profits." Doesn't that sound immoral? But if we think about what we all use our tax money for, there are many private industries that benefit from the presence of a public sector. Take military contractors, for example, they are able to make a significant amount of money just by being hired by the government. Prescription drug companies benefit from the same scenario. Although making everything run by the state would undoubtedly be a bad idea (lower-quality products, etc.) it seems that a government's priority is to provide public goods for its populace.
Who determines which public goods a government should provide for its country? Education is one that seems widely-accepted, why not health care? Shouldn't every citizen have access to high-quality health care? What are the problems with it, would it cost too much? Would moral hazard be a problem? As we discussed in class, it would probably be more efficient actually to have a state-run health system replace the Affordable Health Care Act. It is interesting to see this viewpoint of the British moving in the opposite direction, though. It seems that a pseudo-private health care system allows private firms to take advantage of the government. It may take years, but it would be interesting to see whether the quality of care has improved with the increased health care privatization. This would be evidence that higher private health costs reflect better care.
It is extremely interesting to see the comparison between the privatization of healthcare in England and Obamacare in the states. One major question that comes to mind is where this issue will be in a few years. The article talks about how the program is currently running a huge deficit as the result of having to bid for contracts and the administrative costs of doing so. While this is not the only reason that the costs are rising it is important to consider because it is a cost that could decrease in upcoming years as fewer contracts need to be established. The program will become much more efficient in bidding out work and I would expect that this cost would decrease in the upcoming years. Will this be enough to offset the huge deficit? Most likely not, but it will be interesting to see how the market and program adjust to the changes in regulation.
Hmm... I think this article is very interesting. The British health care system is moving in an opposite direction to the United States': while they are privatizing the health care industry, the US is slowly making it public. I think it also brings up an interesting point that the privatization virtually "turns public tax money into private profits." Doesn't that sound immoral? But if we think about what we all use our tax money for, there are many private industries that benefit from the presence of a public sector. Take military contractors, for example, they are able to make a significant amount of money just by being hired by the government. Prescription drug companies benefit from the same scenario. Although making everything run by the state would undoubtedly be a bad idea (lower-quality products, etc.) it seems that a government's priority is to provide public goods for its populace.
ReplyDeleteWho determines which public goods a government should provide for its country? Education is one that seems widely-accepted, why not health care? Shouldn't every citizen have access to high-quality health care? What are the problems with it, would it cost too much? Would moral hazard be a problem? As we discussed in class, it would probably be more efficient actually to have a state-run health system replace the Affordable Health Care Act. It is interesting to see this viewpoint of the British moving in the opposite direction, though. It seems that a pseudo-private health care system allows private firms to take advantage of the government. It may take years, but it would be interesting to see whether the quality of care has improved with the increased health care privatization. This would be evidence that higher private health costs reflect better care.
It is extremely interesting to see the comparison between the privatization of healthcare in England and Obamacare in the states. One major question that comes to mind is where this issue will be in a few years. The article talks about how the program is currently running a huge deficit as the result of having to bid for contracts and the administrative costs of doing so. While this is not the only reason that the costs are rising it is important to consider because it is a cost that could decrease in upcoming years as fewer contracts need to be established. The program will become much more efficient in bidding out work and I would expect that this cost would decrease in the upcoming years. Will this be enough to offset the huge deficit? Most likely not, but it will be interesting to see how the market and program adjust to the changes in regulation.
ReplyDelete