Abstract
The future sustainability of ‘solidaristic’ or universal publicly financed health systems is frequently said to be threatened by lack of resources as rising demand collides with the growing reluctance of the better-off to pay for services mainly used by others. Competitive health care arrangements are also regarded as threatening solidarity. By contrast, I argue that the main threat to the sustainability of such systems lies in the inability of so-called ‘advanced’ societies to develop institutions that are capable of acceptably reconciling inevitably scarce resources with individual and collective desires to have all the health care we want. Many ‘advanced’ societies lack, or fail to incorporate into their health systems, the range of intermediate institutions that could potentially help in more effectively reconciling individual wants with collectively determined levels of resources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.