As reconsideration of the proposed Treasury Bailout of Wall Street takes center stage in Washington, other pressing and arguably more important problems continue to be ignored.
Take the chronically dysfunctional American health care finance system. This Boston Globe article reports that Massachusetts’ supposedly innovative 2006 health insurance mandate has caused such a shortage of primary care physicians in the state that the wait to see such a doctor has grown to as long as 100 days. In addition, almost half a million citizens are having a difficult time finding a doctor at all:
"There were so many people waiting to get in, it was like opening the floodgates," [Dr. Kate] Atkinson said. "Most of these patients hadn’t seen the doctor in a long time so they had a lot of complicated problems." She closed her practice to new patients again six weeks later. "We literally have 10 calls a day from patients crying and begging," she said.
On the other hand, maybe its better that Congress is distracted from such problems. As a friend of Don Broudreaux observes:
"The one good thing that came out of this whole credit debacle, I now have the perfect pithy response to all the lefties who tell me that the government should take over health care and make it affordable to everyone. You mean the way they made home ownership affordable to all through Fannie and Freddie? How did that work out for you?"
Tom: I know you are a supporter of market based health care finance solutions, but I have to question your interpretation of the Globe article. You seem to be blaming the 2006 legislation for the shortage of doctors in Mass., while the article points out that trouble had been brewing well before 2006. The glut of new patients has only brought the long developing problem to light faster:
“A national primary care shortage has been looming for several years as doctors retire or leave the specialty, which requires long, unpredictable hours and pays less than most other medical specialties.”
I see no rosy market based solution to this except the possibility that those of us stuck in the middle parts of fortune will be cared for at Walmart, not particularly comforting to me.
The article goes on to say:
“There are things we could do more immediately and aggressively in terms of payment reform and reducing the administrative burden on doctors. Those are the things that are really driving people out of practice.”
This could be just as easily taken as a endorsement of a single payer system which would greatly simplify administrative nightmares. For all of the fear and loathing of the Canadian system, it is most certainly true that Canadian doctors don’t need to employ a staff to sort through patient billing.
“On the other hand, maybe its better that Congress is distracted from such problems.”
This “crisis” reminds me that the market can run amok too, and putting our faith solely in the hands of the almighty businessman is equally nonsensical. As you know, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans are not the lone culprits this mess. That “friend of Don Broudreaux” is not mentioning Wall Street’s bundling of questionable loans into questionable investment vehicles. That part of the picture didn’t work out too well either.
Most importantly, all this says little or nothing about the government’s role in the Democratic health care proposal. The Obama plan not a full up government run single payer system nor is it a mandatory program like the Massachusetts program. Even Arnold Kling admits that in a market based system, the government will still have to subsidize the sick and poor, the real question here is to what level of income and need.
Sorry Tom, but for people like me and my wife–who has MS and no insurance–having faith in the market makes about as much sense as waiting for the Holy Spirit to bring you this week’s winning lottery numbers.