The title of your editorial, "The Separation of Health and State" (April 6), was better than the content. Given the Journal editorial page's admirable devotion to free markets, the title leads the reader to expect that the Journal would advocate separating the state from health care. But no such luck. Instead, the editorial criticizes the British government for trying to limit taxpayer spending on health care. The editorial also warns that the U.S. Medicare system may also try to limit spending. Oh, the horror.
Nowhere in the editorial do you point out that if the British government refuses to pay for an expensive medical procedure, people in Britain are still free to pay for it themselves or to buy insurance for that procedure. Isn't the ideal that people should pay for their own health care or their own health insurance? And, if not, why exactly did the Journal oppose Obamacare?
You would be right to fear a government that not only won't pay for expensive procedures but also won't allow people to spend their own money on such procedures, as Canada's government often does. But if that's your objection, say so. We have huge deficit problems in our future and one of the main culprits is Medicare. If we don't support limiting Medicare benefits, that nasty future will come earlier than otherwise.
David R. Henderson
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
(Henderson was the senior economist for health policy with President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers)