Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.
|
I have done most of my research through the Heritage Foundation. Lots of articles and info there.
An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.
A side effect of insurance coverage that I experience all the time in arguments with my wife is that the kid has a low fever. "Oh my!" says the wife. "A fever! We must take the child to the doctor. After all, we have insurance, so it only costs us the copay." Well, OK, if the kid still has a fever in a week and the tylenol doesn't take it down, sure, but the immediate reaction is insane. I do not wish for any sick person to be denied treatment, but I think my situation (and no, I haven't done the research) is typical. Our bodies are pretty much made to take care of and heal themselves, and too many people think every little owie or booboo requires a doctor visit.