The whole 'let's subsidize doctors' thing was not intended to be THE solution. Just something to think about. Also, as I said, the money for subsidization would come from areas where we already are using money. It could be a portion of money already in use for subsidization could be used for such a thing.
I know just like in any other project there will be those who abuse the system for uses not originally intended. Of course, no system is perfect, however, it would use a market-oriented approach rather than a 'free money' approach. It is an incentive to practice medicine where it is needed rather than where money can be made.
Yes, I know that fucks with laissez faire philosophy, but it helps our nation grow stronger. Why is this a good thing? Consider a sports league like the NFL. They spread revenues to lower income teams with the thinking that they can make more money together with a stronger league than if New York, Dallas and the other few big money teams were rolling in the dough by themselves. The smaller market teams would not be able to survive over the long haul. A league with 3 or 4 powerhouses is not nearly as popular as a league where everyone has a chance. Take a look at baseball for instance.
Same thinking can apply here, having the average american healthy, strong, educated, benefits those wealthier later. Same reason we don't privatize roads etc.
Also, the funding ideally wouldn't fully subsidize, but would suplement, to make doctoring in low serviced areas more feasible.
Well said dear, you tell 'em. My husband's so smart! :0)
ReplyDeleteWell first off the whole logic behind using subsidized monies already in use, just differently is bad logic. Thats like saying well the guys HALF way dead we might as well just kill him. Instead of finding the cause of the problem, government intervention, and eliminating the problem.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of it, I understand your intentions are good, but good intentions often lead to bad things. What a free market does is allow for inefficiency to be wipped out, and it allows for the free flow of money to its most valued uses.
So yes the rich areas are going to get the best doctors and the poor areas not so good doctors, but thats better then the people who are actually paying for it being allowed to get the service THEY EARNED. Another important aspect which people who advocate socialized medicine, or some form thereof is that in a free society people are free to help those in need through charity. As a matter of fact, as I often say, America although having one of the highest taxes in the free world on corporations is still one of the most giving of countries. Take the Tsunami in Japan in 2004 American INDIVIDUALS gave over 1.5 BILLION dollars in aid to that country which is far more than any government ever gave them, including the U.S. Government.
Before the 1960 democratic platform charity was the main way people got medical care, and it worked quite well, until democrats lauded that the poor and old shouldn't have to "rely" on charity. As if getting medicaid paid for by the taxpayer is somehow NOT charity...