Supporters of President-elect Obama become very testy when his health care plan is equated with socialized medicine. The “S” word is inappropriate, they tell us impatiently, because his plan doesn’t call for government-owned hospitals or state-employed doctors.
Some policy experts are, however, unwilling to be hemmed in by such a restrictive definition of the term. Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Institute, for example, believes that a more accurate definition should specify real rather than nominal ownership of medical resources:
Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs.
Under this definition, it doesn’t really matter how much money is spent on health care, or even what that money is spent on. All that matters is who controls the resources. So, does Obama’s health care plan fit Cannon’s definition of socialized medicine?
Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward of socialized medicine is absurd.
I think we safely record that as a “yes,” which is why Cannon urges the GOP to fight Obamacare at every turn. Socialized medicine enjoys a well-deserved reputation for inefficiency and poor care, and President-elect Obama’s plan would continue that tradition.
Post a Comment