13 karma · joined April 23, 2020
What is the purpose of that tax? In public finance, we don't want to unnecessarily distort incentives by picking winners and losers. Taxing natural resource extraction for no good reason chases away companies in those industries and forces them to pursue other businesses, possibly leaving only the most profitable monopolies to survive. If we want to raise revenue, why not just raise VAT, corporate tax, income tax, or property tax more generally.
First, require each person to set aside part of their income to a HSA.
Second, top up the values of those HSA's through government transfers for the poor and lower income.
Third, mandate that HSA's can only be used for real healthcare (and not alternative medicine). This way, individuals can afford healthcare but will still take responsibility to not deplete their accounts unnecessarily.
Fourth, (and in response to the NhanN's question) subsidize healthcare providers because healthcare tends to be underconsumed. Why is healthcare underconsumed? When we think about the importance of our own health, we only think of ourselves or our families. But we are valuable to our employer, to our friends. To correct for these positive externalities, some subsidization is essential to bring down those costs.
You are right in that my post didn't address the issues of childcare, let alone genetic diseases, long term conditions etc. where the price mechanism doesn't really make sense or fails. Any healthcare policy will have nuances that I cannot capture in a comment. But for the majority of healthcare consumption, we should really be trying to be as efficient as we can be precisely because of how costly it can be. Throwing away the price mechanism just because it fails for the edge cases is not ideal.
Who loses out more under devaluation?
Is access to healthcare important? Yes, but universal healthcare eliminates market forces which makes things efficient. A better way would be a mixture of health saving accounts (and redistributive transfers to such accounts) and subsidizing hospitals (to reflect the fact that healthcare is typically underconsumed).
Further, the government lacks the necessary profit incentive to keep costs low or maintain high standards. Bureaucrats on fixed salaries have no incentive to try harder.
UBI is a giveaway not a loan.
Is health expenditure in the US higher than in other countries? Yes, but that is because the US is rich, really rich. If we plot US Real Household Income against healthcare consumption, the US is perfectly inline with global trends[1].
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2....
[1] https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2018/11/19/why-everything...
World without IP: No Range Rovers.
Your imagined world of cheap range rovers if we suspended IP only works once but destroys all future incentive to create.