As represented by our cinema and other media, Western society expects too much of masks. In the public’s mind, the still-legitimate use of masks for source control has gone off-label; masks are thought to prevent infection. From here, another problem arises: because surgical masks are thought to protect against infection in the community setting, people wearing masks for legitimate purposes (those who have a cough in a hospital, say) form part of the larger misperception and act to reinforce it. Even this proper use of surgical masks is incorporated into a larger improper use in the era of pandemic fear, especially in Asia, where such fear is high.1 The widespread misconception about the use of surgical masks — that wearing a mask protects against the transmission of virus — is a problem of the kind theorized by German sociologist Ulrich Beck.
The surgical mask communicates risk. For most, risk is perceived as the potential loss of something of value, but there is another side to risk, memorably formulated by Beck in his Risk Society.2 Beck states that risk society is “a systematic way of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernisation itself.”2 For Beck, risk occurs not only in the form of threat and possible loss, but also in society’s organized management and response to these risks, which create a forwarding of present risk into the future. Furthermore, Beck writes of the “symptoms and symbols of risks” that combine in populations to create a “cosmetics of risk.” He suggests that people living in the present moment conceive of risk in terms of the physical tools used to mitigate risk while still “maintaining the source of the filth.”
A at the Mercatus Center estimates that Medicare for all would cost $32.6 trillion over the next ten years. Other studies have been in the same ballpark and they imply that we would need a 25% payroll tax. And that assumes that doctors and hospitals provide the same amount of care they provide today, even though they would be paid Medicare rates, which are about 40% below what private insurance has been paying. Without those cuts in provider payments, the needed payroll tax would be closer to 30%.
Shawn Whatley is past-president of the Ontario Medical Association. He has worked in emergency medicine, as a coroner, in a vein clinic, and as a surgical assistant. He also held a leadership role at a large suburban hospital. He now practises family medicine in rural Ontario. Visit his blog at shawnwhatley.com.in rural Ontario. Visit his blog at shawnwhatley.com.
Single payer healthcare also raises other, more challenging problems:
Those who know cannot speak. The system suppresses dissent. People cannot speak up, because they have nowhere else to work. Professionals working in hospitals or academia must stay quiet. Single-payer systems give tremendous power to administrators who run the monopoly. It enriches and expands government. Price controls appear to limit costs, but profits are found in other ways. For example, price controls force doctors to shorten visits, unbundle care, up-code, or stop providing a service. Centrally planned single-payer systems function on Hayek’s Fatal Conceit, the assumption that planning is possible:
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Local knowledge is impossible to capture or to use in managing the system. Single-payer systems incentivize collusion with government to exclude competition. It creates a psychological change in Canadians. Whereas choice empowers patients, single-payer fosters dependency on the system. It creates increased demand for fixed price services but decreased availability of those services. Single-payer assumes that bigger is always better. But bigger often becomes too big to manage. A CEO of A.T.&T. once said, “A.T.&T. is so big that, if you gave it a kick in the behind today, it would be two years before the head said ‘ouch.’”
Why do we tend to have a more negative visceral reaction to Nazism than to references about the consequences of Soviet Communism?
Dr. Peterson provides insight into why and also why it might be a distinction with little practical difference.
That may be because enthusiasm for single payer tends to die down pretty quickly once people get a sense of what sort of tax increases would be necessary to fund it. An Urban Institute analysis of a previous version of Sanders’ plan estimated that it would cost $32 trillion over a decade.
It promises huge overall savings along with coverage that would be far more expansive, and far more expensive, than Medicaid for all, with no clear way to pay for it, and no specific strategy for driving costs or spending down.
In 30 years of political advocacy, Sanders has not solved any of the fundamental problems with single payer. He has merely opted to pretend they do not exist.”
[Note: On annualized basis, that would more than double the amount we currently spend annually on healthcare. And past projections related to the costs of gov’t programs always vastly underestimate the actual costs, as evidenced below. – The Sovereign Patient]
“The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation). This was a supposedly “conservative” estimate. But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion.” http://reason.com/archives/1993/01/01/the-medicare-monster