🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <28cam8$ke2@agate.berkeley.edu> newman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Nathan Newman) writes:
>But don't take my word for it, here's what one European periodical argues.
> THE ECONOMIST, a moderately conservative pro-business newsweekly in

I would think that would make them a low credibility source for you,
then. :-)  In fact, The Economist is a notoriously inaccurate source
of information, quite comparable to Newsweek or Time in their poor
quality of fact checking.

>Britain, notes:   "In the 30 years in which America, along among rich
>countries, left health care mainly to the market, it saw costs and the
>numbers of uninsured mushroom.  Much else may be uncertain, but that
>policy is a proven failure."
>
>         *    Nathan Newman:  newman@garnet.berkeley.edu  *

In fact, health care was not left mainly in the market.  The 
Medicare program dramatically increased the number of dollars
spent on medical care in this country.  What happens when you
increase the number of dollars chasing a good, without an
expansion of the supply of the good?  The price goes up.

In the early 1970s, Health Systems Agencies were established 
by that liberal Nixon, and proceeded to exercise monopolistic
powers over what equipment and facilities hospitals could 
purchase.  Ostensibly, this was to save money.  The anticompetitive
effects were so obvious that they were eventually abolished by
Congress.

The largest state in the U.S., California, adopted a more generous
form of Medicaid/Medicare called Medical, which certainly played
a major role, even when measured on a national scale, in the
U.S. health system.

"Left mainly in the market"?  No, not true, as usual.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Richard Ramirez was caught smuggling a handcuff key into San Quentin Prison.
Hmmmm.  The death penalty doesn't seem like such an overreaction anymore.