01

02/12

Health Care Problems One of Subjective Valuation – Letter to the Editor

12:38 by rleahy. Filed under: Letter to the Editor,Libertarianism,Randian
Tags:

In response to this:

Gwen Isaacs hits the nail on the head — I think inadvertently – in her letter published Wednesday in saying “you get what you pay for“.

This is certainly true.  It also may be true when she says “this provincial government has shown its priority is cost, not care“.

But who are we to say that’s a poor choice?  When someone goes and buys a TV of poor quality because they care more about cost than size or quality, do we look down our noses at them?

No, because they have their own subjective valuation of money vs. television quality.  You remain free to go and buy an expensive television and don’t subsidize their purchase — i.e. their decision does not impact you.

The problem, therefore, isn’t with the provincial government’s valuation (i.e. cost over care), but with the concept of socialized medicine itself.

The provincal government attempts to provide health care for the whole province.  It’s analogous to one person buying TVs for 4.5 million people.  If they choose cost over quality, the economical person is displeased, but if they opt for the converse, the connoisseur is displeased.

This is the fundamental problem with any system which takes money from all to pay for services which purport to be “one size fits all“.

Instead of concocting “solutions” people should accept this fact: When you socialize anything you have this problem.  There is no “solution“, there are only changes which will please you at the expense of others.

25

01/12

Economic Realities of Canadian Health Care

09:33 by rleahy. Filed under: Letter to the Editor,Libertarianism,Randian
Tags:

In response to this:

Bob Etheridge suggests that the price disparity between a consumer good — a cellphone — and a specialty good — an insulin pump — is due solely to unreasonable markup.

I have a different explanation: Supply and demand.

Nearly everyone has a cellphone, which means there’s a large demand, and therefore the margin on each phone does not have to be large to cover the manufacturer’s fixed costs.

Compare this to insulin pumps. Not everyone has an insulin pump, and not everyone will need an insulin pump. This means that the relation between per unit margins and fixed costs is much different than with a cellphone.

Moreover, if your phone “crashes“, it’s a minor inconvenience. If a medical device “crashes“, someone may have died. There’s a large cost that comes with reliable hardware and software that is not present in consumer electronics.

Bob suggests that provinces pay “a fair price“, but what is “a fair price“? Only the market can decide “a fair price“, but the market for medical goods and services in Canada has been destroyed by socialization. Is he advocating price controls, which are known to cause shortages?

The real problem is that cost is removed from the consumer by socialization. This encourages over-consumption and disregard for costs while discouraging the competition that causes the costs for market-provided goods and services to fall.

But this will not change. Socialized medicine is the third rail of Canadian politics, regardless of inconvenient economic reality.

23

01/12

Health Care is not a Federal Matter

11:51 by rleahy. Filed under: Letter to the Editor,Libertarianism,Randian
Tags:

In response to this:

Redner Jones calls in the Monday edition to make healthcare a federal matter. Not only is this a bad idea, but it’s unconstitutional.

The Constitution Act, 1867 states:

“In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to [...] [t]he Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals [...] in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.”

In addition to unconstitutionality, centralizing health care is a bad idea. It hasn’t worked in Britain. It hasn’t worked in the U.S. (the American system of medicine is user pay only where federally regulated “insurance” or federal programs do not cover the costs — these federal programs and mandates conspire to raise costs, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of unaffordability).

Health care is not one size fits all. Despite its third rail status in Canada, socialized medicine is a fundamentally bad idea. Worse would be centralizing it — at least at the provincial level citizens can agitate for change, this is much harder at the federal level.

The government licenses drivers, purporting to keep the roads safe, but have you driven recently? The government controls guns, but it seems every other week someone is gunned down in Surrey.

Do you really want this government making medical decisions for you? Deciding how many doctors, nurses, hospitals, or beds are needed to keep you and your loved ones alive and healthy?

And in addition to the consequentialist argument, there’s a moral argument: By what right do we compel others to pay for our medical care?