Under government healthcare, the extent of rationing is inversely proportional to the amount of money the government is willing to put into the system. In the 80's and early 90's in Canada governments were stingy with healthcare funds so we had extensive rationing. In the late 90's governments opened the purse strings due to the economic boom and rationing dropped to much lower levels. Your president has just spent the money of the next two generations buying GM and stimulating... well nothing in your economy. He won't be able to afford a well-functioning healthcare system despite his best intentions. You'll see tremendous rationing. However, and this is something I always want to post about, much of the problem with rationing comes from the consumer, the patient. If people were to eat well, exercise regularly, consume minimal alcohol and avoiding smoking and drugs, how much less illness would we see? Is the potential rationing because of insufficient resources or because we have a population that does not take care of itself and then expects the healthcare system to?
>> If people were to eat well, exercise regularly, consume minimal alcohol and avoiding smoking and drugs, how much less illness would we see?
Lots but I think we also have to grant that doing all the right things doesn't prevent everything.
>> Is the potential rationing because of insufficient resources or because we have a population that does not take care of itself and then expects the healthcare system to?
Probably both to one extent or another.
One point I would like to make, to speak in general terms, is that rationing is a fact of life.
The very definition of economics is how people deal with the scarcity of resources.
To say that any legal entity, public or private, is not going to have rationing is ultimately less than truthful.
2 comments:
Under government healthcare, the extent of rationing is inversely proportional to the amount of money the government is willing to put into the system.
In the 80's and early 90's in Canada governments were stingy with healthcare funds so we had extensive rationing. In the late 90's governments opened the purse strings due to the economic boom and rationing dropped to much lower levels.
Your president has just spent the money of the next two generations buying GM and stimulating... well nothing in your economy. He won't be able to afford a well-functioning healthcare system despite his best intentions. You'll see tremendous rationing.
However, and this is something I always want to post about, much of the problem with rationing comes from the consumer, the patient.
If people were to eat well, exercise regularly, consume minimal alcohol and avoiding smoking and drugs, how much less illness would we see? Is the potential rationing because of insufficient resources or because we have a population that does not take care of itself and then expects the healthcare system to?
>> If people were to eat well, exercise regularly, consume minimal alcohol and avoiding smoking and drugs, how much less illness would we see?
Lots but I think we also have to grant that doing all the right things doesn't prevent everything.
>> Is the potential rationing because of insufficient resources or because we have a population that does not take care of itself and then expects the healthcare system to?
Probably both to one extent or another.
One point I would like to make, to speak in general terms, is that rationing is a fact of life.
The very definition of economics is how people deal with the scarcity of resources.
To say that any legal entity, public or private, is not going to have rationing is ultimately less than truthful.
Post a Comment