How much is too much health care?

That is the central question of any redesign of the health care system. We only have so many doctors and hospital beds to go around so at some point we need to determine when care should be denied. Dealing with this issue is paramount and unavoidable (it is also ironic given the push for universal health care).

So how do we do it? Well suppose health care were completely free to the user but paid for by every member of society through taxes. Price or your luck with an employer would no longer be the rationing mechanism of health care (yippee!). Instead, health care would be rationed on a first come first serve basis, through the use of--you guessed it--lines. The biggest fear, of course, is the eventual overuse of the health care system to such an extent that many at Fox News and others would perish because of the long wait (thus fulfilling their own health care prophecy--on snap! Should have listened to Hannity when we had the chance).

Also, even if it is completely free to the user and assuming, for the moment, that it is completely free of corruption there still would be plenty of unequal access to health care based on an individual's proximity to shorter lines and proximity to health care of higher quality (sorry, Iowans, the Mayo clinic is a much longer drive for you).

Also, we know that overuse is a potential problem because Medicare recipients often misuse health care by going to the emergency room too often for medical assistance that could be administered more cheaply. When individuals are disconnected to the actual cost of services they are bound to overuse it. But that begs the question, how much, is too much health care?

When we use the market to ration the good, it all depends on the price people are willing and able to pay. Without price, it will depend on how long you are willing and able to wait.

Now, this could be just as effective--as long as you are not waiting for that defibrillator.

One final thought though, you could always have a bureaucrat or technocrat tell us how much health care is appropriate (brief pause while millions of Fox viewers gasp in horror). However, in many ways a bureaucrat might make better decisions than an insurance executive. After all, sick people can still bestow political power, but they are a total drain on health insurance company profits. Maybe that bureaucrat will have your best interest in mind (or your best interest in the sense that he or she needs to keep you just healthy enough to stuff the ballot box).

There is always rationing through random assignment. Heads I win, tails you get that colonoscopy you have always wanted.

So before you go diving in head first with your socialistic leanings, tell me truly, how are you going to prevent people from getting too much health care?