There's probably not much use in responding to this, but I can't help myself:
Here's one way I think of the matter. Suppose we had taxpayer provision of 'universal' grocery needs. That is, we are all taxed to stock supermarket shelves, and in return for these higher taxes that we pay, each of us is accorded by government the 'right' to take from each supermarket whatever grocery items we 'need.'Let's take the grocery analogy. First, most people know exactly what food they need and the consequences of eating said food. We know getting an apple instead of a candy bar is bad for our health and might make us fat. We don't have to go to a "food consultant" every time before we buy food in order to attain it, nor do we need someone to give us a prescription for our food. We also know that we need food every day, at least three times a day.
Isn't it obvious that each of us, having to pay no marginal cost of whatever grocery items we take from supermarkets, will take more than we need -- or, at least, try to take more than we need? Isn't it obvious that, having to pay no marginal cost of whatever grocery items we take, we will consume wastefully? Isn't it obvious that the prices of grocery items (and the actual costs, including queuing, of acquiring such items) will rise to heights far higher than those that we pay now with our private system of supplying groceries?
Let's compare that to going to the doctor or hospital. You can't even get health care without an appointment (unless you're going to the ER). Then the expert tells you what you need and orders it for you. You can't treat yourself (but you can feed yourself). And it's an infrequent endeavor for most people -- rarely do you need health care 3 times a day, every day.
So we can't treat ourselves and we don't need health care very often. The urge to eat every time you're hungry is surely greater than the urge to see the doctor, especially for routine care. No one becomes like a kid in a candy store when going to the hospital. (Can you imagine going in and saying "give me that operation and that procedure, Oh, and a colonoscopy too, while you're at it!")
What am I missing? Why do so many people -- including some faculty members tenured at presigious Departments of Economics -- fantasize that if we collectivize medical-care provision, ordinary people will be made better off?Why do so many people fantasize that ordinary people will be made better off? Seriously? Oh, I don't know, maybe because premiums have risen horribly, the industry is trying to hold down costs by shifting them to patients, and 45 milllion people have no insurance at all. But having the government guarantee coverage would greatly ease those problems for ordinary people, who struggle paying their medical bills and fear losing their coverage. I'd say that's a pretty big benefit.