T
tjm190
Guest
Contrary to your first impression, my intention with this thread it too explain why the complaint in the title is invalid.
Let’s start with why people make the claim-
1.Many people in the U.S. do not purchase health care to the extent they would like too because they can not afford it.
2. Therefore, if they could afford it they would be able to purchase it or purchase more
3. So, the price is too high
Seems airtight- but in this case, it is not. In this case, the jump from 1 to 2 is invalid. This seems contrary to reason- if the only reason I don’t purchase something is because I can’t afford it, obviously I would purchase it if the price dropped for no particular reason, right? Wrong.
Let’s take a look at a place where this reasoning is valid-
Imagine a society with 100 residents, numbered 1 through 100. In the town they live, there is one sandwich shop. Everybody really wants one of those sandwiches. The sandwich shop produces 50 sandwiches per day. Resident 1 is willing and able to spend 1 unit of currency on his daily sandwich, resident 2 is willing to spend 2 units of currency, and so on to resident 100. The sandwich shop prices at 51 units of currency per sandwich, and they destroy any sandwiches they don’t sell- so residents 51-100 get their sandwich. This makes resident 1-50 very sad. Each is left thinking “If only the price were to go down to (their number here), then I could have a delicious sandwich”. In this case, resident 50 is correct- if the price were 50, he could buy his sandwich and nobody would be any worse off because of it.
This is generally the logic behind “the price is too high” conclusions. But let’s say the price was 50. Would resident 49 be correct in assuming he could purchase a sandwich if the price were 49 or lower? Yes and no. Yes, he could afford that sandwich. But there are 50 other people who want a sandwich and can afford one- and only 50 sandwiches are produced. If the price were 49, 48,…,1 the more residents could afford it- but that doesn’t change the fact that there are only 50 sandwiches are out there.
Although waiting lists in U.S. are generally short, the fact that they exist shows that the industry is operating at or near its ‘max.’
Of course not all markets work like this- if demand for Coke jumped suddenly, Coke probably wouldn’t raise its prices much if at all- Coke can easily increase production to respond to a shift in demand.
But can health care? The obvious answer is no- it takes years of training for a high caliber individual to become a doctor, and the work is known to be stressful.
This doesn’t mean we can’t increase the number of individuals in the system- however, the amount of care given has little wiggle room. What does this mean? It means each individual currently in the system will have to receive less care, and some who could afford to enter the system will not be able to.
The question then becomes how do we increase the supply of health care? There is no short term answer- you can’t mass produce doctors. The market has tried plenty hard - ever wonder why an oncologist tends to make north of $200,000 per year? I think the obvious long term solution would be heavy(er) subsidies for medical education- with conditions. A friend of mine was put through medical school by the U.S. Navy, on the condition that he work for them for a big chunk of time. This strategy could be applied by our government as a whole- provide heavy assistance in exchange for commitment.
In closing- Yes health care costs alot. That does not mean lowering the price would extend care.
Double edit- Depending on your time zone, Merry Christmas!
Let’s start with why people make the claim-
1.Many people in the U.S. do not purchase health care to the extent they would like too because they can not afford it.
2. Therefore, if they could afford it they would be able to purchase it or purchase more
3. So, the price is too high
Seems airtight- but in this case, it is not. In this case, the jump from 1 to 2 is invalid. This seems contrary to reason- if the only reason I don’t purchase something is because I can’t afford it, obviously I would purchase it if the price dropped for no particular reason, right? Wrong.
Let’s take a look at a place where this reasoning is valid-
Imagine a society with 100 residents, numbered 1 through 100. In the town they live, there is one sandwich shop. Everybody really wants one of those sandwiches. The sandwich shop produces 50 sandwiches per day. Resident 1 is willing and able to spend 1 unit of currency on his daily sandwich, resident 2 is willing to spend 2 units of currency, and so on to resident 100. The sandwich shop prices at 51 units of currency per sandwich, and they destroy any sandwiches they don’t sell- so residents 51-100 get their sandwich. This makes resident 1-50 very sad. Each is left thinking “If only the price were to go down to (their number here), then I could have a delicious sandwich”. In this case, resident 50 is correct- if the price were 50, he could buy his sandwich and nobody would be any worse off because of it.
This is generally the logic behind “the price is too high” conclusions. But let’s say the price was 50. Would resident 49 be correct in assuming he could purchase a sandwich if the price were 49 or lower? Yes and no. Yes, he could afford that sandwich. But there are 50 other people who want a sandwich and can afford one- and only 50 sandwiches are produced. If the price were 49, 48,…,1 the more residents could afford it- but that doesn’t change the fact that there are only 50 sandwiches are out there.
Although waiting lists in U.S. are generally short, the fact that they exist shows that the industry is operating at or near its ‘max.’
Of course not all markets work like this- if demand for Coke jumped suddenly, Coke probably wouldn’t raise its prices much if at all- Coke can easily increase production to respond to a shift in demand.
But can health care? The obvious answer is no- it takes years of training for a high caliber individual to become a doctor, and the work is known to be stressful.
This doesn’t mean we can’t increase the number of individuals in the system- however, the amount of care given has little wiggle room. What does this mean? It means each individual currently in the system will have to receive less care, and some who could afford to enter the system will not be able to.
The question then becomes how do we increase the supply of health care? There is no short term answer- you can’t mass produce doctors. The market has tried plenty hard - ever wonder why an oncologist tends to make north of $200,000 per year? I think the obvious long term solution would be heavy(er) subsidies for medical education- with conditions. A friend of mine was put through medical school by the U.S. Navy, on the condition that he work for them for a big chunk of time. This strategy could be applied by our government as a whole- provide heavy assistance in exchange for commitment.
In closing- Yes health care costs alot. That does not mean lowering the price would extend care.
Double edit- Depending on your time zone, Merry Christmas!