A Cynical Look on Universal Healthcare Part 3


Ahh, Veterans Day: the anniversary of the signing of the Armistice that ended World War I. Which was followed by the ridiculous terms of loss given to Germany that, ironically, caused World War II.






Anyway, today we continue on to the third section of our gigantic bit on Universal Health Care (UHC). If all of the problems we already discussed were not enough to sway you from the support of UHC, there are still more you need to know.

Universal Health Care causes scarcity in health equipment. In fact, compared to Canada, the US has more than twice as many open heart surgery centers per million people, more than three times as many MRI units per million people, more than four times as many Lithotripsy units per million people, almost twice as many CT scanning centers per million people, and more than twice as many cardiac catheterization centers per million people.

Why is this? Well, there is no competition in the health care market. Why would your firm spend extra money to get some of this technology when either way you have a full list of patients? Well, you wouldn't! These machines are very expensive, so there is no incentive to buy them.

In America, you can find this type of technology fairly readily as it stands. When one purchases this equipment in the United States, most can expect to make the money they spend back by charging for the equipment's use. This creates an economically feasible reason to actually obtain this equipment from the standpoint of a health specialist. However, if we moved to a Universal Health Care system, we can expect to have the same problems with scarcity that we see in other countries that have already adopted this system.

4 comments:

Greg said...

excellent,used an actual source today :-). You are way more credible when you have sources for your information. btw, i clicked on the ads again today.

Mr. Sam said...

ah, so it was you. Careful though, too much gets us in trouble.

Greg said...

which other Greg would post on your website? citing sources at the end of your blog will not get you in trouble though, and I actually believed what you said (versus 95% of economists agree from earlier). in other words, this blog is getting better very fast.

Mr. Sam said...

No, the taxes thing is an Economic Law, which means that at least 95% of economists agree on that. I'm actually an economics major anyway. Look it up if you want. But, I was talking about clicks not sources.