Humans need shelter, water, and food (in that order) to survive. In this thread, we will simplify the discussion by focusing on water. Is access to potable water a basic right in the US today? If so, who should pay for it? How much should each person receive on a monthly basis?
The reason I inquire about water in particular is that it seems the most directly analogous to healthcare for the following reasons. Given an unlimited supply of water/healthcare for every person may extend life expectancy, but we will all still die. Rationing water/healthcare may increase the mean life expectancy while diminishing quality of life. Regardless of whether an individual or government pays for the water, the money has to come from somewhere because water, like healthcare, is a finite resource. The scarcity of water will become increasingly apparent over the next few decades as the population continues to grow, as will the scarcity of healthcare. Increasing scarcity of water/healthcare will drive up the price of both to where fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to buy their own, while the wealthy will continue to be able to use both at will.
The solutions which work for water conservation (i.e. restrictions on types of usage) have proven marginally effective. Research continues to show that simply allowing market forces to increase water prices results in more judicious use of water, thereby keeping the prices lower for everyone. I link this article in particular because they note a counterintuitive finding wherein a regulation intended to protect one group of consumers which is thought to be at a competitive disadvantage actually comes out behind due to the "protections" put in place with the regulations. In other words, by attempting to grant one group special status and protect them from market forces, that group and everyone else end up with less satisfactory outcomes than if everyone had just been left alone. In hindsight, this is a predictable outcome where a market constraint diminishes market efficiency.
In the end, we can all agree that ideally, everyone should have unlimited access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, and other basic necessities. Unfortunately, these are all finite resources and cost money, whereas demand for these resources is infinite (i.e. people will use as much as is available subject to affordability). In my opinion, implementing special classes of citizenry which are "protected" by virtue of being poor, elderly, young, or whatever it might be is actually decreasing their quality of life while increasing costs for everyone. Sometimes, the best solution is to simply do nothing as the cure is worse than the disease.
The reason I inquire about water in particular is that it seems the most directly analogous to healthcare for the following reasons. Given an unlimited supply of water/healthcare for every person may extend life expectancy, but we will all still die. Rationing water/healthcare may increase the mean life expectancy while diminishing quality of life. Regardless of whether an individual or government pays for the water, the money has to come from somewhere because water, like healthcare, is a finite resource. The scarcity of water will become increasingly apparent over the next few decades as the population continues to grow, as will the scarcity of healthcare. Increasing scarcity of water/healthcare will drive up the price of both to where fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to buy their own, while the wealthy will continue to be able to use both at will.
The solutions which work for water conservation (i.e. restrictions on types of usage) have proven marginally effective. Research continues to show that simply allowing market forces to increase water prices results in more judicious use of water, thereby keeping the prices lower for everyone. I link this article in particular because they note a counterintuitive finding wherein a regulation intended to protect one group of consumers which is thought to be at a competitive disadvantage actually comes out behind due to the "protections" put in place with the regulations. In other words, by attempting to grant one group special status and protect them from market forces, that group and everyone else end up with less satisfactory outcomes than if everyone had just been left alone. In hindsight, this is a predictable outcome where a market constraint diminishes market efficiency.
In the end, we can all agree that ideally, everyone should have unlimited access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, and other basic necessities. Unfortunately, these are all finite resources and cost money, whereas demand for these resources is infinite (i.e. people will use as much as is available subject to affordability). In my opinion, implementing special classes of citizenry which are "protected" by virtue of being poor, elderly, young, or whatever it might be is actually decreasing their quality of life while increasing costs for everyone. Sometimes, the best solution is to simply do nothing as the cure is worse than the disease.
Facebook
Twitter