AAPS Reviews Priceless
In a review of Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis, Keith Smith writes this:
If you are a left-wing, pro-“ObamaCare” ideologue, you are not going to like this book. Virtually every myth espoused by the proponents of national healthcare receives the flogging it deserves with Goodman’s painstaking analysis.
And then this:
If, however, you are a libertarian, sympathetic to the economics promoted by Dr. Ron Paul and the Austrian School, you, too, will be annoyed by parts of Goodman’s newest book. That healthcare is a right, for instance, is taken for granted in this book, as Dr. Goodman would have the government, through manipulation of the current confiscatory tax code, playing a predominant role in provision and financing of medical services in this country.
Ouch. For the record, I believe that in an ideal world there would be complete separation of health and state, just as there is separation of church and state, and for the same reasons. In the meantime, let’s make the role of government as unobtrusive as possible.
Excellent point made by Dr. G. Purists would have it that some of the proposals in Priceless are another form of government manipulation. Given the alternative, however, those proposals are far less intrusive than what we’ve just ended up with.
I think the balance of criticism is flattering: its message seems to be that this is a realistic account based in fact and nothing else.
I agree with Ambrose.
The balanced criticism is telling a good story.
It is probably true that hardcore Libertarians would find fault with some of the policies recommendedin the book; as would proponents of socialized medicine. However, a prescription of “take care of yourself or die on the street” is probably too unfeeling for most Americans to condone (not to mention too short to make into a good book). Since it’s a given that government believes it within its power to intervene in the health care market, it should do so in ways that cause the least disruption as possible.
I do not believe the book makes the case that health care is a right. Rather, health care is something that people may be able to receive depending on their age, circumstances and whether they can find a charity care provider willing to treat them. There are government policies to encourage universal access to care, but no guarantees.
Even in countries with socialized health care systems, you never have a right to a given service or a right to a specific place in line. Rather, you have the right to receive whatever service the government decides is warranted. In far flung Canadian provinces such as Prince Edward Island, the “right” to get the MRI your doctor ordered might take months to achieve. In Britain, the right to a new cancer therapy might depend on which Health Authority you live under and whether its global budget for that therapy has run out for the year. Or your right to being treated aggressively might depend on whether your doctor believes your age warrants aggressive intervention.