And that’s precisely what’s obstructing any meaningful reform.
Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt talks about how the American people wants to have their cake and eat it too, and devises an “all-American wish list” of what ideal reform should look like to the American public.
It includes such items as, “Cost-effectiveness analysis should never be the basis of any coverage decision by public or private third-party payers in health care, for to do so would put a price on human life — which, in America, unlike everywhere else, is priceless,” and, “Americans have a moral right to life-saving and potentially highly expensive medical care, should they fall critically ill, even if they are uninsured and could not possibly pay for that care with their own financial resources.”
He’s not joking. Nobody, and that means patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and Big Pharma, is willing to make any sacrifices. And, in effect, that means any proposed reform should not create winners or losers, “but only winners.”
Good luck devising such a plan.
Related posts:
- Most Americans have health insurance, and what health reform is going to do for them
- Why Americans fear radical health care reform
- 10 health reform posts you may have missed
- How health care reform can improve public health
- AMA: Curbing the rise in health care costs is key to health-system reform
- Health care reform: The uncivil war dividing America
- Health care policy experts versus the public, an obstacle to reform
{ 2 comments }
I loved that piece and the cartoon as well. It needs to be more widely read. In fact, I wish it could be part of the handbook that the delegates to our state medical society get before our annual meeting. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to spend 3 days trying to impress each other with our zeal to uphold these absolutes, and we might actually come up with a few useful solutions.
I think a reasonable goal for healthcare reform would be to help more than it harms. By most analyses, it fails this basic benchmark at present. Yes, Uwe, perfect is the enemy of good enough: So why try to remake the economy, when instituting reasonable legislation (or removing legislation) would do the trick? You’d like competition: remove the ridiculous requirements in some states for a minimum healthcare plan. As a male, do I need gynecological coverage? As I’m under 40, do I need a nursing home provision?
Reform at present wants to consolidate healthcare under the government, when its role should be to encourage competition via legislation. It should not be trying to manage sectors of industry, whether it be automotive or healthcare.
Comments on this entry are closed.