Thursday, July 23, 2009

Health Care

Yea, I'm against "Universal Health Care".

Why should there be one system? We don't have a system of food-delivery, yet that's arguably far more important than health care. Without food, you'd never live long enough to need a doctor. We have a variety of food stores to cater to what people want. If someone wants to spend a ton of money on caviar and organic whatever, we let them. If someone would rather live on rice and beans and ramen, and save money for something else, we're all too happy to let them have their choice.

Why should it be different for medical care?

One argument is that it will save money, or that we should trust those in Washington (particularly the President) to make a great new system. I don't understand that. Does that mean we should go and see if he likes Coke or Pepsi and then just get rid of the other one? He chose the best soda, why waste resources on the other one? We should find out what cheese he likes, and eliminate all others. If we only have one cola and one cheese, think of all the advertising those companies would save, and the price of cheese and soda would fall! Heck, we should find out his favorite grocery store, and make that the only one.

Well... except there's no competition... And too bad if you have different priorities and tastes than him. It doesn't matter. It's For The Children! (TM)

When does one size fits all ever fit anyone?

1 comment:

Troy said...

The problem with "Universal Healthcare" is that it must, by definition, make health care delivery "universal". In other words, deliver the same health care to everyone - an impossible, unsafe and costly proposition.

In my practice patients are all different and have different needs.


Teeter Inversion Table Reviews