For the sake of argument, let's suppose that relying upon the state to provide "affordable" health insurance for all citizens has zero impact on the level of service (i.e. wait times, approved procedures, etc.). It's a huge assumption (and wrong) and I'll come back to it in a moment. For now, let's set aside the tragic tales and focus solely on the economics.
From where does the money come to pay for this "affordable" insurance? Productive sectors.
Where does the money go? Unproductive sectors.
By what means does this transfer occur? Coercive action by the state.
The voluntary exchange of private property for something deemed valuable ultimately leads to a higher level of societal prosperity. Anything that gets in the way of that exchange retards that mechanism. Obstacles to a voluntary exchange include legislation, regulation, licensure, taxes, and other levers employed by the state.
Coercive state action that forces private property from productive sectors into unproductive sectors robs society of value. This is what the state means to do through health care reform.
Let's make it personal.
Suppose you make $700,000 this year. What would you do with the money that you will end up paying in taxes (whether to subsidize "affordable" health care, wars, social security, etc.)? Would you buy a car? Take a vacation? Invest in companies that will use your capital to fund research and development? Launch more companies?
There are thousands of ways you might spend/save/invest that money. And each time you voluntarily exchange money (or anything that may be considered private property) for something you want, you raise the level of prosperity in society.
Now, back to the alleged problems of wait times and unapproved procedures that supposedly exist in a state-managed health care system. In such a system, competition is retarded. Legislation prevents competition between states. Licensure lowers competition by reducing the number of doctors, nurses, and other caregivers that are available to help customers (i.e. patients). There are other hurdles to competition, but the above are sufficient to make the case.
In a free market with unrestrained competition, there would be no shortages. If someone wants to voluntarily acquire a thing, another person will produce it for a negotiated price. This is true between buyer and seller, laborer and employer, and caregiver and patient.
Because a state-managed health care system reduces competition, shortages of "goods" are a foregone conclusion. In this case, shortages are represented by caregivers and the services they provide to customers (patients). Because shortages must emerge when there are obstacles to competition, wait times are also a foregone conclusion.
If you want health care that is delivered at low cost with a higher level of quality, get rid of coercive state action and every hurdle to competition. Taxes, licensure, regulation, and the rest... throw 'em out. Put the customer in charge. Let him or her decide with whom they will enter into consensual contracts for services.
The tales of people suffering are truly tragic, but they muddy the waters by stirring viewers' emotions. Worse, they keep folks from learning the true long-term damage these reforms will cause.
