Michael Cannon tries to shift the focus on the health care debate:
Make no mistake, America has an uninsured problem. As journalist Jonathan Cohn documents in his book Sick, the high cost of coverage produces far too many avoidable tragedies. Nonetheless, most reformers, including Cohn, focus obsessively on expanding coverage, despite the fact that many economists can find no evidence that it is a cost-effective way to improve health.Simply expanding coverage would have little effect on the quality of care, health disparities, or how long we live, nor would it stop free-riders from shifting costs to others. In fact, expanding coverage through government regulation or tax-and-transfer programs would make our problem worse.
(via The Physician Executive)
Related posts:
- Rationing care is inevitable to control health care costs
- Will Americans accept a trade-off in medical accuracy for lower costs?
- Medicare and cutting health care costs
- Costs first, then the uninsured
- Health care costs, not the uninsured
- Cutting health care costs means reducing utilization
- Universal healthcare myths
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Exactly . . . it would certainly not make doctors wash their hands, make rational non-groupthink decisions, stop receiving their “education” from advertisers, prescribe drugs because a little birdie (detail rep) told them that was what all the cool kids were doing.
Yep . . . it definitely wouldn’t turn “medicine” into a science.
“Nonetheless, most reformers, including Cohn, focus obsessively on expanding coverage, despite the fact that many economists can find no evidence that it is a cost-effective way to improve health.”
Rights exist independently of costs. If I have a purported “right to health care,” then that is the end of the discussion. “Cost” is a strictly orthogonal non sequitur.
Or maybe, just maybe, there is in fact no such thing as a “right to health care”…
Either way, the buredn is on the health care socialists to resolve the paradox, not on those opposed to it.
My post at The Physician Executive pointed out that the references don’t support Mr. Cannon’s assertions.
I would like to check myself, so if anyone has the time to read some of the papers to which he links, please let me know if you agree or disagree that the data doesn’t say what he says it does.
I would like to see a conservative thesis proposed that extends health coverage at low-cost to those who need it the most, but not universally or via single-payer.
I am afraid that Mr. Cannon has harmed that agenda via blatant manipulation, misrepresentation and a disregard for truth.
Or maybe, I’m wrong.
Comments on this entry are closed.