Choose one or the other, because you can’t have both:
Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine””it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.
Related posts:
- The fatal flaw of universal coverage
- Can universal health coverage be sustained long-term?
- Medicare and cutting health care costs
- Primary care incomes and universal health coverage
- Universal coverage without primary care
- Universal coverage and primary care
- Will the lack of primary care doctors make universal coverage useless?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
Sure you can –through declared savings, as in “We will save 120 billion by using electronic records” and “We will save 40 billion by cutting fraud and waste”.
Just declare it, and it “will” happen, right?
Actually, given the 100% rate of gross failure of the health care planner to predict the financial consequences of every health program over the last 40 years, the fact that any politician can make statements like that and not be immediately booed out of public life is a sad commentary on democracy itself.
Comments on this entry are closed.