Originally Posted by karlsmith
The idea that Matt was trying to sell me on here is that you actually get less government involvement in the economy overall with a nationalized health care system than with the US system because under nationalized health care system health care is a smaller fraction of the economy.
The key point, that I should have made more explicit, is that the health care system is already shot through with enormous paternalism. Making doctors state employees is small leap from the current system where virtually every aspect of the actual medicine part of medical care is controlled at multiple levels by multiple different government organizations.
Given that this is the case, expanding consumer choice can't come through reforming medicine but only by shrinking medicine as a fraction of the economy.
Thanks for the clarification, with it that's an interesting argument. It strikes me as unlikely that you actually would shrink medicine as a fraction of the economy, but admittedly that's just my sense of where the politics would shake out-- strongly influenced by Mickey Kaus's assertions on the subject.
However, I'm not sure why you couldn't try to strip away some of the other government influences you and Matt describe, rather than doubling down on government involvement. Assuming away the political stability of either solution, don't you think we be better off going that route?