> The problem with giving people more money to stimulate demand for those things is that it only solves half of the problem. Healthcare is limited by the supply

> The problem with giving people more money to stimulate demand for those things is that it only solves half of the problem. Healthcare is limited by the supply of doctors so no matter how much government subsidizes it, the amount of people who can be seen by the constant number of doctors will be the same. In practice, this means the price will increase every time you try to give people more money for healthcare. That's true but that's not true. While the # of doctors is constant right now, it is always changing as new doctors are trained and licensed (and also older doctors retiring). Just like computer science, as the demand increases and supply does not grow to catch up, wages will increase, but that doesn't mean there isn't at least some stimulus in the number of new people who decide to get into the profession. While there won't be a glut of new doctors in 48 hours, obviously, but rather over years, it will (hopefully) eventually catch up. Just consider the US population growing at around 0.7% yearly (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth.html?mcubz=3 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-growth....). And if there are about 390 patients, on average, per practicing doctor in the US (http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/185-the-patients-per-doctor-map-of-the-world http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/185-the-patients-per-doctor...), then given that population of the US increases around 2.2 million per year, that means we should be getting around ~5600 new doctors into the field every year. If you believe the stats, we will likely be facing quite a shortage over the next 7-10 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/03/03/u-s-faces-90000-doctor-shortage-by-2025-medical-school-association-warns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/0...