Myths

The media is filled with myths. Some myths are repeated so often that it's often hard not to believe them. At times like that it's good to have the shelter of good think tanks to seek protection from the brain-washing.

The current [state operated, tax-funded health care] system [in Britain] provides care to all regardless of income. Again, there is a belief that this requires nationalised provision. And again, this is a myth. The mixed system that once existed in the UK, and similar systems that currently exist in other countries, generally provide better health care for the poor than the does the NHS. Health care for the less well off can be financed by general income redistribution or by the provision of government finance to allow the less well off to obtain private insurance. Indeed, the voluntary sector is often more effective than the state in providing assistance to the less well off. Changes to the structure within which health care is delivered in the UK could benefit all and end the equality of misery from which we suffer at the moment. Today’s system of allocating resources through the political system does not benefit the poor: it benefits the articulate, and those in the more prosperous areas that have the least difficulty attracting medical staff. (#)

A nationalised, tax-funded, centralized health care system is a crippled one. It has no incentives to improve its practice, increase quality and service, cut costs, attract good staff, prevent people from getting sick or help people get well. The only mentionable incentive is the ambition of the good, well-intentioned bureaucrat who regulates with his right arm and hires more bureaucrats with his left.

The myth of the nationalised health care-system is very much alive, despite facts, research and experience telling a different story. How can we change that?