you take the innovation out of health care. Glenn Reynolds:
The normal critique of socialized medicine is to point out that people have to wait a long time for these kinds of treatments in places like Britain. And that's certainly a valid critique. I'm sure my mom and daughter would still be waiting for their treatments, while my father and wife would probably be dead.
The key point, though, is that these treatments didn't just come out out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.
But under a national healthcare plan, the "market" will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs.
One only need to look at the market for flu vaccines as a case in point. There were only two companies that serviced the entire US market back in 2004. Moreover, the way the vaccines are produced, a rather labor-intensive production process using eggs, has largely been unchanged since the 1960's. A big reason is because government is the biggest buyer of flu vaccines in the US, and public servants use their monopsony power to lower the costs to the government and, thus, the profits of pharmaceutical industries (one person's expenditure is another's income).
Sometimes we need to reminded of this: people respond to incentives. When government takes the profit out of a venture, people are going to be less willing and able to invest in that venture. Is this really what we as a society want for ourselves and our children (and their children) in the market for health care?