Earlier this year, our dog spent a few weeks in a lot of pain and on a lot of painkillers because he was hit by a car and broke his hip (he is fine and back. who drags me all over my local park every day). Caring for him made me want to go to the doctor or dentist like going to the vet in one very important way: health insurance it is not involved, so we are very clear about our options and, importantly, how much those options will cost. When we go to the doctor or dentist, the only price we face is the co-pay, and when we talk about treatment, we don’t learn much about the menu of options and the price of each one. We fixed our dog with stitches and medication, paid for it all at once, and now we have no more bills, paperwork, or any unpleasant surprises. insurance companies we should expect.
That’s not the case. There is no contradiction. No complicated paperwork. There is no uncertainty. Taking a dog to the vet was more like taking a car to the grocery store than a doctor’s visit. We walked in, they told us how much our options would cost, and we chose. Conversely, I don’t have much incentive to pay attention to costs if my only out-of-pocket costs are a small copay, and the insurance company handles the rest. What the insurance company paid for my eye doctor and sleep clinic visits are important parts of my actual compensation, even though they don’t like it because they don’t appear in my checking account at any time. Would people get the sense that their real income is decreasing if they get their pay raise instead of expensive health benefits?
But is health care a human right? The United Nations says so-but declaring something as a human right doesn’t change the fact that we can’t provide it without resources that we wouldn’t use to produce something else. Yes, we can all think of ways that other people waste it theirs money for senseless nonsense. Still, we might do well to look in the mirror and ask if we need to spend $1,000 on airfare, hotel, and food to participate in a protest march in Washington, DC, because we think the government needs to give something “for free.” .” When we say something should be “free,” that’s shorthand for “someone else has to pay for it”–and removing prices doesn’t eliminate costs. It only hides them.
In addition, the price health care people who “need” it depends on the cost. Diabetics do not have many substitutes for insulin, but severe cases make bad rules, and there are other treatments. For many other, very minor illnesses, many different methods of self-treatment do not necessarily involve visits to doctors or medications. For example, economist Bryan Caplan recently determined a small reduction in the risk of death from the tetanus booster was not worth the pain and suffering of the needle and decided not to get it, which caused an unnecessary debate on Twitter because there is a difference between thinking vaccines will hurt you and thinking a vaccine won’t. -an infectious disease that kills two Americans a year is not worth it. Earlier this week, one of my nephews got a cut while visiting us. Did we call 911 and insist that they prepare the operating room for the extraction? No, we took out the tweezers. If someone else is paying, it’s easier to “demand” more health care.
“This is the price we pay for health equity and justice,” doesn’t convince me. An ambulance that transports a person with a stomachache (or a roof) cannot transport another person at that time. Ambulances need resources: if we say “yes” to one ambulance, we say “no” to another fire truck. The right choice is unclear with prices that make trade-offs obvious.
Taking your dog to the vet shows how the market loves you—and your little dog, too. Life would be easier if going to the doctor was like taking a dog to the vet.
Art Carden is Professor of Economics & Medical Properties Trust Fellow at Samford University.
Source link