Thursday, January 31, 2008
Universal coverage or cutting costs
Choose one or the other, because you can't have both:Universal health care has a basic and fatal flaw, you can’t simultaneously reduce the cost of a service and increase access to it. If you have universal access, you have to find a way of paying for people to get that access, which raises costs. If you want to keep costs down you can only economize so far before you have to restrict access. Universal health care is a bit like a perpetual motion machine—it would be wonderful in theory, but it can’t actually exist in reality.
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (1)
| 
Comments:
Sure you can --through declared savings, as in "We will save 120 billion by using electronic records" and "We will save 40 billion by cutting fraud and waste".
Just declare it, and it "will" happen, right?
Actually, given the 100% rate of gross failure of the health care planner to predict the financial consequences of every health program over the last 40 years, the fact that any politician can make statements like that and not be immediately booed out of public life is a sad commentary on democracy itself.
Post a Comment
Just declare it, and it "will" happen, right?
Actually, given the 100% rate of gross failure of the health care planner to predict the financial consequences of every health program over the last 40 years, the fact that any politician can make statements like that and not be immediately booed out of public life is a sad commentary on democracy itself.
# posted by 
: 7:20 PM
: 7:20 PM
