Un ICSS o ISS para U.S.A.

ICSS (el extinto Instituto Colombiano del Seguro Social)
ISS (Instituto del Seguro Social)

La entrada es del Ludwig Von Mises Institute y comenta la propuesta de ley del gobierno de Obama para monopolizar en manos del estado (es lo que nos dice el comentarista) la prestación de los servicios de salud en USA

Extracto inicial:

"The government's initial step in attempting to create a government-run healthcare monopoly has been to propose a law that would eventually drive the private health insurance industry out of existence. Additional taxes and mandated costs are to be imposed on health insurance companies, while a government-run "health insurance" bureaucracy will be created, ostensibly to "compete" with the private companies. The hoped-for end result is one big government monopoly which, like all government monopolies, will operate with all the efficiency of the post office and all the charm and compassion of the IRS..."

¿Significa ésto que Colombia en su momento estaba "adelantada" a USA en sus soluciones al tema?

¿Por qué en un país con una tradición tan exitosa de libertad de empresa y mercado llegan a surgir estas propuestas? ¿Por una interpretación errada (o interesada) de los orígenes de la crisis?

¿Por qué después de tanta ciencia y sangre (en milenos de historia registrada) no se acaba de consolidar la verdad sobre los grupos de interés, la filosofía sobre los sofistas?

Extracto:

"Of course, it would be difficult to compete with a rival who has all of his capital and operating costs paid out of tax dollars. Whenever government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is grossly unfair, piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them. This is why the "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were so profitable for so many years. It is also why so many abysmally performing "public" schools remain in existence for decades despite their utter failure at educating children..."

La triste historia documentada:

"Some years ago, the Nobel-laureate economist Milton Friedman studied the history of healthcare supply in America. In a 1992 study published by the Hoover Institution, entitled "Input and Output in Health Care," Friedman noted that 56 percent of all hospitals in America were privately owned and for-profit in 1910. After 60 years of subsidies for government-run hospitals, the number had fallen to about 10 percent. It took decades, but by the early 1990s government had taken over almost the entire hospital industry. That small portion of the industry that remains for-profit is regulated in an extraordinarily heavy way by federal, state and local governments so that many (perhaps most) of the decisions made by hospital administrators have to do with regulatory compliance as opposed to patient/customer service in pursuit of profit. It is profit, of course, that is necessary for private-sector hospitals to have the wherewithal to pay for healthcare.

Friedman's key conclusion was that, as with all governmental bureaucratic systems, government-owned or -controlled healthcare created a situation whereby increased "inputs," such as expenditures on equipment, infrastructure, and the salaries of medical professionals, actually led to decreased "outputs" in terms of the quantity of medical care. For example, while medical expenditures rose by 224 percent from 1965–1989, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population fell by 44 percent and the number of beds occupied declined by 15 percent. Also during this time of almost complete governmental domination of the hospital industry (1944–1989), costs per patient-day rose almost 24-fold after inflation is taken into account..."

La perversidad del "estado de cosas":

"The more money that has been spent on government-run healthcare, the less healthcare we have gotten. This kind of result is generally true of all government bureaucracies because of the absence of any market feedback mechanism. Since there are no profits in an accounting sense, by definition, in government, there is no mechanism for rewarding good performance and penalizing bad performance. In fact, in all government enterprises, exactly the opposite is true: bad performance (failure to achieve ostensible goals, or satisfy "customers") is typically rewarded with larger budgets. Failure to educate children leads to more money for government schools. Failure to reduce poverty leads to larger budgets for welfare state bureaucracies. This is guaranteed to happen with healthcare socialism as well..."

El "ejemplo" del Canadá:

"A January 16, 2000, New York Times article entitled "Full Hospitals Make Canadians Wait and Look South," by James Brooke, provided some good examples of how Canadian price controls have created serious shortage problems.

A 58-year-old grandmother awaited open-heart surgery in a Montreal hospital hallway with 66 other patients as electric doors opened and closed all night long, bringing in drafts from sub-zero weather. She was on a five-year waiting list for her heart surgery.

In Toronto, 23 of the city's 25 hospitals turned away ambulances in a single day because of a shortage of doctors.

In Vancouver, ambulances have been "stacked up" for hours while heart attack victims wait in them before being properly taken care of.

At least 1,000 Canadian doctors and many thousands of Canadian nurses have migrated to the United States to avoid price controls on their salaries.

Wrote Mr. Brooke, "Few Canadians would recommend their system as a model for export."..."

:-( De todo esto hemos conocido por acá, y aún conocemos, pues la cacareada libertad de competencia otorgada a las EPS privadas es y seguirá siendo una ficción mientras la ley establezca los precios que pueden cobrar, que es lo que de hecho hace mediante el regimen de contribuciones, subsidios cruzados entre la población y regulación directa de las tarifas de los servicios prestados, medicamentos, exámenes de laboratorio, etc.