Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Single-payer: "The flaws are unacceptable"
Why a single-payer health care system is the wrong way to go:The great majority of universal health-care systems are not single-payer. They allow private coverage into the mix.
Why is that better? For one thing, patients who use private medical services reduce the load on the public system. In New Zealand, for example, private hospitals do more of the common, less invasive procedures, leaving the high-tech care in the publicly run facilities.
Private competition also helps assure quality. Without an alternative, the monopolistic system becomes an "uncontested standard" that may be inferior.
There's also the freedom argument. People don't want to be told that they can't spend their own money on goods that would benefit them -- and who can blame them?
Canada and a few others take pride in not asking patients to pay a cent of their health-care costs, but it's a mistake not to charge user fees. If people don't have to dig into their own pockets when they use medical services, Walker says, "you find yourself giving universal access to a physician for sniffles and company."
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (7)
| 
Comments:
It's a matter of symantics.
I agree, there may be a few people who want a strict single payer health care system, but others such as myself, see nothing wrong with a mix of single payer plus private supplemental health care, much like Medicare operates today.
And neither would I object to instituting co-pays for all services rendered.
I agree, there may be a few people who want a strict single payer health care system, but others such as myself, see nothing wrong with a mix of single payer plus private supplemental health care, much like Medicare operates today.
And neither would I object to instituting co-pays for all services rendered.
So we have umpteem posts by Kevin saying how unacceptable and horrible our current system is, now we have yet another saying how unacceptable and horrible an alternative will be.
Pray tell, Kevin, what will make you happy?
Pray tell, Kevin, what will make you happy?
# posted by 
: 10:31 AM
: 10:31 AM
You're right, there is no system that will make everyone happy.
I support the concept of an individual mandate, and prefer the approach to universal coverage as suggested by Massachusetts' plan.
Thanks,
Kevin
I support the concept of an individual mandate, and prefer the approach to universal coverage as suggested by Massachusetts' plan.
Thanks,
Kevin
Or keep it the way it is. I have no problem whatsoever with the current system.
# posted by : 11:01 AM
: 11:01 AM
Since everyone will not be happy no matter what, and we will all get sick eventually no matter what, lets be free and sick and griping instead of giving up our freedom
# posted by : 7:08 PM
: 7:08 PM
Why do people have to post anonymously?
Use a fake name if you have to.
Nobody really cares what your name is, or who you are, but it would be nice to know if there are different anonymous's posting or just one.
It makes it a little easier to understand the debate.
Use a fake name if you have to.
Nobody really cares what your name is, or who you are, but it would be nice to know if there are different anonymous's posting or just one.
It makes it a little easier to understand the debate.
I would strongly recommend David Gratzer's The Cure. It illustrates many of the problems regarding the Canadian system and the American system.
I am very surprised to read the support of the Mass Plan. Frankly, I don't want the government mandating anything for me. That being said, the plan's goal of providing care for everyone is laudible. However, it is still just a side-step around the issue of providing "universal" care. That plan's cost has been drastically under-estimated and under-funded.
The fact is that everything and anything costs what it costs, period. Hiding those costs from consumers by artificially lowering prices or paying for things with federal tax dollars( ie your money run through the mill) doesn't change the fact that it still costs what it costs. Either people will self-ration or the government (like Canada) will ration for you. In general, the current system in America hides the costs by having employers pay (with your pre-tax dollars) the insurance companies. You then consume the health care without regard for the cost; only concerned with "does insurance cover it". This results in inefficent use of resources. Gratzer gives an excellent example of a new and expensive drug with an improved side-effect profile. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who got it were "well-insured" (ie insulated from the true cost) whereas less "well-insured" people, who actually needed the drug, usually did not get it. Do you want the government to decide who should get that drug? Or do we let the price system reflect the underlying cost and have people self-ration. Like it or not those are the only choices. I would bet that the people who don't really need the new expensive drug will not buy it. They might even opt for an over-the-counter drug if they were exposed to the real cost.
Finally,I hope that it is clear that the government can not possibly run any business as efficiently as the private sector. If anyone disagrees with that I would suggest reading about the horrendously inefficient use of electricity, materials, etc in the Soviet Union's industries relative to the the US private sector.
Post a Comment
I am very surprised to read the support of the Mass Plan. Frankly, I don't want the government mandating anything for me. That being said, the plan's goal of providing care for everyone is laudible. However, it is still just a side-step around the issue of providing "universal" care. That plan's cost has been drastically under-estimated and under-funded.
The fact is that everything and anything costs what it costs, period. Hiding those costs from consumers by artificially lowering prices or paying for things with federal tax dollars( ie your money run through the mill) doesn't change the fact that it still costs what it costs. Either people will self-ration or the government (like Canada) will ration for you. In general, the current system in America hides the costs by having employers pay (with your pre-tax dollars) the insurance companies. You then consume the health care without regard for the cost; only concerned with "does insurance cover it". This results in inefficent use of resources. Gratzer gives an excellent example of a new and expensive drug with an improved side-effect profile. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who got it were "well-insured" (ie insulated from the true cost) whereas less "well-insured" people, who actually needed the drug, usually did not get it. Do you want the government to decide who should get that drug? Or do we let the price system reflect the underlying cost and have people self-ration. Like it or not those are the only choices. I would bet that the people who don't really need the new expensive drug will not buy it. They might even opt for an over-the-counter drug if they were exposed to the real cost.
Finally,I hope that it is clear that the government can not possibly run any business as efficiently as the private sector. If anyone disagrees with that I would suggest reading about the horrendously inefficient use of electricity, materials, etc in the Soviet Union's industries relative to the the US private sector.
# posted by : 6:10 PM
: 6:10 PM
