If just amazing how many physicians I know support Universal Health care. My beloved spouse and others, who physicians, have their heart in the right place but have no sense of the economic realities.
Here is an excellent post by Greg Mankiw (emphasis mine):
'Technological advance is making state-of-the-art health care increasingly expensive. In any kind of national health system, some treatments will, by simple cost-benefit calculation, be deemed too expensive to provide to all citizens. But does that mean those of above-average income should be excluded as well? Should they lose basic benefits if they choose to pay for these marginal services with their own money?
If you say yes to this last question, as the U.K. health service has, here is a related one: Should a parent who hires an after-school tutor for his child be barred from sending the child to the public schools?
Some people like to think of health care and education of basic human rights. Maybe they are. But they are also normal goods. That is, the income elasticity of demand is positive. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the right cost-benefit calculation for providing the good depends on the income of the consumer.
Achieving both efficiency and equality in the provision of these goods is impossible. Dealing with this conflict will provide a major challenge to the political system in the years to come.'
As technology permeates within our health care system no way can all citizens have access to this. By nature of the technology adoption curve you WILL ALWAYS have some folks who have access to it first and that cost will be higher than those that have access to it later.
Don't buy into the warm and fuzzies of peddlers of universal coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment