Sunday, September 20, 2009
Why Health Care Will Never Be Equal
Greg Mankiw's column in the New York Times business section on Sunday deals with health care and the costs of new procedures. Scarcity is a key element in his article (get here.) Read the article. How will universal coverage and the costliness of new procedures be reconciled? What are some ways they can be reconciled and who gains and who loses by these different options?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I thought it was interesting how the author deliberated on the value of the life saved versus the cost of the health care he consumes (in this case the cholesterol pills). I just find it entertaining to read about health care in such a way especially form the purely economic point of view.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing that I enjoyed hearing from the author was the discredit of the notion that everyone should get equal, full health care. From an ideal stand point, that would be awesome, but it just isn't feasible from an economic standpoint.
Universal coverage and costliness will not be reconciled. As in other instances, some people will pay the bulk of the cost while others will enjoy higher benefits and not pay as much. Take for instance police and fire services. The rich pay more taxes, so pay more proportionally for these than poorer people do. And yet, both groups receive equal coverage, and poor people might use police services more. People don't complain about this though because the benefits are not as apparent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with healthcare, the benefits to people have an immediate effect on their bank account, and are not part of some tax they pay throughout the year that goes to many different things. The tax is out of mind, while the healthcare cost is here and now. Therefore people object to paying for other people's healthcare, and yet don't mind paying for their fire and police services.
So poorer people and those with preexisting conditions will benefit, while other people will pay just as much or more, and yet receive less benefits in reference to how much they pay or use.
Personally, I think we should examine how other countries administer their socialized healthcare, since that is where we are heading. Other countries have more efficient healthcare and better healthcare, so why don't we copy them? Even if that means socialized medicine, which "isn't the American way," this would benefit the populace greatly.
Universal healthcare will not be reconciled in a way where every person will get full coverage. Due to scarcity, it is impossible for everyone to receive all the benefits. There will become a point where only some people will be able to receive something, and we need to figure out how we will choose the people that are going to receive the treatment. The government is claiming that everyone will be able to have all treatment, but as economists we can see that this is impossible. If we are going to try to have a socialized healthcare system, I think that it will have to be along a middleground. There is no way that everyone can have everything when it comes to healthcare. With a middleground, everyone would probably have some sort of healthcare while others will have more coverage than these others. I do not think the government should decide who is getting more coverage.
ReplyDelete