Greedy or Ignorant

In his article "Greedy or Ignorant", Walter Williams warns against looking to other health-care systems, specifically that of Canada, to reform American health-care. He uses Aesop's fable "The Dog and His Bone" to illustrate that the health-care system in Canada may only appear to be better because it is being judged from an American perspective. Williams bases his argument on "myths" about the United States system and on assumptions of what a single-payer health-care system has done for Canadians. He concludes that repealing government restrictions and moving towards a more capitalistic model of health-care is a better solution than looking to Canada. Williams' argument is weak and presents many faulty conclusions in terms of social and economic repercussions.

Williams begins his stance by looking at our current system and attempting to quell the argument that uninsured Americans do not receive health care. This is a major component of the health-care reform movement and an issue that is solved by the Canadian system where all citizens have access to care. Williams states that even uninsured Americans can receive care, and often receive that care for free. Similarly, he turns to the "myth" that prescription drugs increase dollars spent on health-care. He notes that a small percentage of an individual's income is spent on drugs and that preventative drugs reduce long-term care expenses.

Williams also addresses the "myth" that the problems the U.S. health-care system faces come from that system being a free-market. He expresses his disdain for government involvement in regulating health-care and the cost that it has added to the system, longing to be more of a free-market system.

Finally, Williams gives proof that turning to Canada's health-care system is imprudent by relaying the story of a man who had to wait months to begin his cancer treatment under the Canadian system. He concludes his argument by touting the repeal of government restrictions that stem from socialist underpinnings, urging us toward a completely free-market system.

The fallacy here is that, as a mixed economy, certain social issues have been chosen that the public is not willing to leave unregulated. While a free-market, hands-off government approach could undoubtedly solve some of our health-care woes, the risks and opportunity costs seem too high. Williams is in favor of removing government restrictions in order to reduce government spending, allow medical practitioners the freedom to have more time devoted to patients, and to remove regulations on insurers and providers. However, removing these regulations leaves the door open for unscrupulous medical providers to take advantage of the system. Cutting corners and reducing costs to maximize profits are less of a risk when considering cell phone service than health care. This problem is illustrated in other industries that remain regulated, like the meat packing industry. While an unregulated meat packing industry might not lead to unsanitary practices by the whole, a few greedy producers are all it would take to put the public health at risk. When matters of health and public safety are involved, regulations protect the whole from the greed of a few that could jeopardize an entire industry.

Similarly, repealing government restrictions does not make health-care any more accessible to the underprivileged. Williams' argument that getting government out of our hospitals and doctors' offices is a "smarter move" than a more socialistic approach does nothing for the care of the poor and uninsured. Insurance companies will still have prices that they are willing to reimburse for medical procedures, making certain procedures and treatments far too expensive for the average uninsured person to attain.

Is this a problem? Under a free market system, each person should be operating for one's best interest. However, in terms of health-care, this falls victim to the fallacy of composition. Everyone self-optimizing is not necessarily best for the aggregate. This can be represented with examples as small as a decreased labor force (and thus decreased production) due to