continued…

So how has it all panned out?
 
In 1966 Medicaid had a budget of $1 billion.
There were 4 million people enrolled.
Spending per enrollee was a little less than $200.
Medicaid spent about $4 per United States resident.
 
In 2000 Medicaid had a budget of over $200 billion.
There were 33 million people enrolled.
Spending per enrollee was over $6000.
Medicaid spent about $750 per United States resident.
 
So why the huge increase?  I thought all this spending in 1966 was supposed to create a society (a “great” one at that) in which the future was bright and shiny and fewer people would be sick and needy.  The overall population of the country went from 196 million in 1966 to 281 million in 2000.  So in 1966 about 2% of the population was using government health care and 34 years later in 2000 about 12% of the population was using it.
 
If that percent continues to rise we will have complete governmental control of health care without ever having to even think about or vote on whether or not we want socialized medicine.
 
Notice that last figure I quoted in each little block of statistics?  In 1966 every U.S. citizen paid about $4 per year for old and poor people to have health care.  That is, of course, a flawed stat.  It assumes everyone in the U.S. was working and had a job which could be taxed in order to pay for the supposed generosity of our elected officials.  Obviously it was a bit more than that.  Therefore, in 2000 the minimum a taxpayer was donating to someone else’s health care was $750 a year.  It is wrong in principle to redistribute wealth in this manner.  But in 1966 I suppose $4 a year didn’t hurt too badly and most people probably just said, “Ah, what the hell.”  Unfortunately, four years ago at $750 a pop the effects were probably felt a little bit more clearly.  Imagine if you were shortchanged $4 on your yearly income how mad you would be.  Now imagine it was $750.  Now imagine its a few years in the future and it amounts to a serious percentage of your yearly income and your kid is sick but the government has taken over the health care industry, there aren’t enough doctors to do all the work since a law was passed forcibly reducing their pay and many docs quit and for “some reason” medical health care quality just ain’t want it used to be.
 
In researching this I found a number of papers and commentary by people that assured me that these government programs were “sometimes better at cost containment than the private sector” and “these programs have a lower overall per capita spending ratio per sector area in comparison to various private insurance structures and institutions…”  Et cetera.
 
Again, someone is either lying or naïve.
 
And it’s all very interesting but completely irrelevant.  Private insurance and free market driven health care is bought and paid for by choice.  Government programs are funded by law.   Can you say Fundamental Difference?
 
There is no valid reason for the government to be put in charge of running any health care production, delivery or “system”; in fact, there only valid reasons against it.