How should relitive scarcity with health care be allocated in the us?

Question

I dont understand economics :-( help?

if/when we have limited resources for health care (Ex: flu vaccines) how should they be rationed in different parts of the united states? or two whom should they be rationed to? and why... im confused.

Answer 1

There isn't a right answer to this question. It is more opinions. The question seems to be trying to show you problems in economics.

How would you allocate health care? Under Capitalism you increase the price based on the available supply. And those willing to pay the high costs will buy it. A couple of problems though, we are talking the cost of life and death not the cost of pencils or widgets. Is there a minimum social standard? And if you are talking about the poor who only earns enough to pay for food, he is thinking of health insurance as a luxury item. So you think of the cost of taking care of yourself you think health insurance and he thinks enough food on the table. Is he negligent or just in a different mode of survival?

So, if you value individual lives by how much someone makes, then the current system works.

Answer 2

One basic idea of economics I'd like to summarise for you. There is no such thing as a "scarcity" of anything that can be traded, because the price that suppliers can get for it will rise to the level that brings supply and demand into balance. There is no need to "ration" things. Rationing (also most other government actions you can imagine) actually gets in the way.

The economically efficient way to help the poor get something they would not otherwise have access to, if that's what the political will is for, is to give subsidies to the poor. "Income support", as it's called in Britain, is designed to make sure that every citizen has at least enough money to live simply on and is on, not below, the poverty line. If your poor were given an OK level of income support, they could then choose to buy health insurance. If they spend it on alcohol instead, in a truly liberal society that's their problem, not the government's. In practice, for reasons I won't explain here, governments after doing this might well in realtiy make health insurance compulsory. (eg Singapore).

Answer 3

I don't understand your question