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?

Why is it that "one-size fits all" never really fits at all?

In this week's Newsweek, Sen. Ted Kennedy makes a passionate appeal for universal health care coverage in the United States. His mantra has always been that health care should be a right and not a privilege.

Admirable, yes.

However, in Sen. Kennedy's mind (or at least for this commentary in Newsweek), universal means that everyone has the same medical coverage that he had through his plane crash and now his current battle with brain cancer. Unfortunately, health care, like any other good or service, is a finite and constrained by money, time, people, and physical space (well. . .um. . . duh). Can we really expect everyone to get the same level of care as a prominent Senator or even a sitting President? Is this really what Sen. Kennedy means by "universal"?

Well. . .probably not.

So without further adieu here is my current question, what level of"universal" is ideal for our society? (That's right Jeffy, I am calling you out--where have you been man? Hopefully, walking the halls of Congress this minute lobbying for this issue or just having a nice relaxing summer, whatever;-).

Instead of debating what is actually in front of Congress right now (which is some 1,000 page document written in incomprehensible lawyer-eze). Let us play the role of the benevolent social planner and design a hypothetical structure to distribute health care (that sounds fun, right?). Others following this blog can play along at home as well.

To do this, we should think about what are the top three things we would like out of our health care system. Widespread coverage, strong incentives for innovation, high quality of care, effective utilization and treatment, low costs, etc. To achieve these goals we must think about what we would be willing to give up. For instance, less high quality care facilities for the sake of widespread coverage and usage or something along those line.

So tell me what you think, and then I will respond with my grand scheme to save our health care system (man, it is too bad that those bozos on the hill are not reading this blog--maybe we should twitter our final results or something).

Happy Social Planning! Hope to see a post soon.

And the cat came back. . .

We thought she was a goner. But then she resigned as governor for her big book tour/I need to pay off all of the legal bills because I have been politically massacred trip across the U.S. of A.

Yup. Palin makes politics interesting (interesting as in, you never really quite know what is going to come out of her mouth at any given time interesting). And that is the real reason she will be around in 2012. Either as a pundit or a candidate, she will be making references to soccer-joes and six-pack-mamas, errr, I mean. . .well, you get the picture. The fact remains that people are just drawn to her--just like the way people root for an underdog. Or the way people watch American Idol, but only for the really really bad singers. I mean come on, who wants to watch Romney and the Newt duke it out over fiscal policy and health care.

The latest editorial from Douthat, claims that Palin's defeat represents the destruction of the ideal that anyone--truly anyone--can become President of the United States. A class war raised by the elites to keep the common man (or woman) down.

Hey Douthat: I doubt that! (Ha!)

I think she was just a pawn in the Republicans sceem to keep the Presidency and she was so strongly embraced by the right because she was rejected by liberals and pundits alike. That ideal was never there to begin with on the Republicans side--it was all an illusion (the true trick of the elites to keep the common man and woman down). Just like that plummer guy. Liberals rejected his journalistic know-how and his in-depth political analysis because he had no qualifications or talent. And Republicans embraced him--to keep up the illusion. Not because his analysis was really that good or that they really cared what he actually said but rather because liberals hated him. Similarily they embrace Palin, not because she is qualified or they believe she could make a good Vice President, but because of liberals' distain for her.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Who cares what she stands for. Republicans will allow a common man or woman to be President, only if they advance the will of the elite. And if you can convince people you are for the common man or woman in the process--all the better.

No real question here. Just a random political rant.

Ok, putting my soapbox away now.