The American Spectator

The Public Policy

(Page 2 of 2)

The standards that go into the fairness in financing measure include progressivity -- i.e., whether the rich pay more into the health-care system (fair); whether some households incur catastrophic payments (unfair); and whether equivalent households make unequal health-care payments (unfair). Yet it's questionable if such standards are really fair. For example, is it fair for two households with equivalent incomes to make equal payments if one household consumes more medical services?

p>It's pretty clear that such standards were designed to bias an outcome in favor of government-run health-care systems. The WHO report states that in health care, "government remains the prime mover," and its "key role is one of oversight and trusteeship -- to follow the advice of 'row less and steer more.'" We further learn that markets ration health care br> /p>

by price, which means that who gets what goods and services depends not only on how much those goods and services are valued by people, but on who has the means to buy them. Priorities are not set by anyone but emerge from the play of the market. As indicated, this is almost the worst possible way to determine who gets which health services.

br> Relying on the WHO report as sound research, as the New Republic did, is about as safe as a Renault Le Car in downtown Paris last fall.

Now that the left is promoting France, it is probably only a matter of time before it is discredited as an example of the ideal health-care system. Where, then, will the supporters of government-run health care turn to for a country with better health care than the U.S.? Well, they can always try Colombia, Morocco, Dominica or Costa Rica.

David Hogberg is a senior research analyst at the Capital Research Center. He also hosts his own website, Hog Haven.

topics:
Health Care, Law, Medicare