Saturday, November 21, 2009


There are so many lessons all over the World on how mandatory health care insurance had not contributed to decreased poverty; or improve access to medical services of low-income people. Still, many politicians in the US insist on passing a 2,074-pages bill to make it mandatory

This is a clear example of how government officials think of the citizens as handicapped creatures that need to be told what to do with their own lives.

It is true not all cases are the same. However, health care reforms that demand more government intervention are doomed to fail. This is so because the success of such reforms depends on the accuracy of the planning done by central planners. It had been stated that the three biggest employers in the world are the Indian State Railways, the Chinese Army and England’s National Health System (NHS). Of the latter one, about 1 out of 23 English workers are in the NHS; and of those about half the employees are administrative. This means a large percentage of the budget goes to pay for bureaucracy rather than medical services. This makes it extremely inefficient: i.e. cancer survival in the UK reduces to 77% as opposed to a 100% in the US.

In those countries where there's massive government health care, waiting lists become mortal and medical tourism becomes the norm. Except that with this bill -you see- medical tourism will be over since many countries have adopted similar reforms. So much for your "inexpensive-access-to-all public-health-system". Review this piece by John Stossel for a more in-depth analysis.


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. According to this, Hong Kong is one of the healthiest places in the world.

    Apparently, they have a mixed system, with private and public hospitals. I'm doing research, but I can't find what the health system is like in Hong Kong. It must be market driven to a certain degree, thanks to positive non-interventionism.

    Any idea?