Spending Other Peoples' Money: The REAL Problem
According to Dr. David Gratzer of the Manhattan Institute, in 1960 about half of health-care expenditures were directly controlled by consumers. Today, it is about 15%. Over the same period in which consumers have relinquished control, per-capita health-care spending has quintupled and costs have skyrocketed.
~Star Parker in Hillarycare Is Not the Answer
Now imagine how your spending on food, travel, clothing, automobiles, cell phone plans, housing, etc. would change if you only paid 15% of the total cost out-of-pocket.
1. You'd eat a lot better, and so would your dog, e.g. you'd both eat a lot more steak.
2. You'd always travel first-class.
3. You'd get a Jaguar instead of a Ford Focus, or you'd get 2 Ford Focuses instead of one.
4. You'd get 2,000 minute per month plan, instead of a 500 minute plan.
What would happen to the prices of food, cars, etc.? Up, Up, Up.
Bottom Line: Anytime consumers are insulated from the true and full cost of their purchases of goods or services, consumption of those goods or services will increase significantly, which will then eventually significantly increase the prices of those goods and services and/or reduce the quality, which will then make those goods and services less and less affordable, which will then create a crisis, which will lead many to claim that there has been a "market failure" and advocate a government solution.
But anytime consumers are insulated from 85% of the true and full cost of their spending, that's not a market failure, that's a problem that has its source in spending somebody else's money.
Universal healthcare won't do anything to solve the problems of: a) spending somebody else's money, and b) making consumers conscious, aware AND concerned about the full cost of their treatment.
As P.J. O'Rourke said "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it is free."