Ok, it's been long enough.
The "debate" on health care reform over here is nothing more than political maneuvering, lies, power plays, bribery, arm-twisting, and statistics. So, politics as usual.
Getting past that to what really matters, i.e. maintain high levels of medical care, extending access to that care, and containing the cost of that care, I have come to the following simple, economic conclusion: you can either have universal access to care (able to get the care you need/want) or you can have universal coverage (insurance, or ability to have your care paid for), but not both. From what I can tell of most of the Euro nations that have some form of single payer or state-run health care system, they generally succeed in getting basic care to most people. However, once the care escalates the bureaucracy kicks in, the shortage of providers or specialists or surgeons or MRI machines squeezes the access and rationing occurs. While rationing is overseen by the government, I don't believe it causes it arbitrarily. It is the manifestation of supply and demand in action -- introduction of millions of patients without a corresponding rise in competent providers and hospitals leaves the supply of care stretched to thin.
There is another element of supply/demand -- cost. Only so many tax dollars available, as a burgeoning lower and immigrant classes pay less into the system than they pulls out, burdensome corporate and individual taxes retard economic growth and takings by the Treasury, and more people (baby boomers) living longer and longer craving more and more care. Meanwhile, innovative medical procedures and equipment drive the cost of providing care up. Rationing again takes place, in the form of unsupported drugs or surgeries, age limits for cancer treatments or dialysis, and enforced end-of-life hospice. The government is the messenger, and at times the villain, but really it's just economics playing out the only way it can when doling out scarce resources.
So far, nearly none of these topics have been confronted intelligently in the current debate over here. In my conversations with friends and family, everyone acknowledges them but not one supporter of Obama's proposed reforms can explain how what has happened in every single nation with nationalized care can't or won't happen here.
I get varying reports from Britain's NHS, but by and large it focuses on care shortages, high taxation, denials of treatment, impenetrable bureaucracy, and dissatisfaction. I'm confident that there is more to what percolates out in the news, so I ask what has been your experience with your care? What is the future of the system? Is there a shift towards private coverage, cash-based care? Are there enough competent doctors?
If you were helping reform the American system, knowing what you know from your own system, what would you recommend? What would you warn against?
I work in health care, and deal with this every single day on the legislative and lobbying front. I'm familiar with the economics of the US system, and most of the flaws.
Fire away.
The "debate" on health care reform over here is nothing more than political maneuvering, lies, power plays, bribery, arm-twisting, and statistics. So, politics as usual.
Getting past that to what really matters, i.e. maintain high levels of medical care, extending access to that care, and containing the cost of that care, I have come to the following simple, economic conclusion: you can either have universal access to care (able to get the care you need/want) or you can have universal coverage (insurance, or ability to have your care paid for), but not both. From what I can tell of most of the Euro nations that have some form of single payer or state-run health care system, they generally succeed in getting basic care to most people. However, once the care escalates the bureaucracy kicks in, the shortage of providers or specialists or surgeons or MRI machines squeezes the access and rationing occurs. While rationing is overseen by the government, I don't believe it causes it arbitrarily. It is the manifestation of supply and demand in action -- introduction of millions of patients without a corresponding rise in competent providers and hospitals leaves the supply of care stretched to thin.
There is another element of supply/demand -- cost. Only so many tax dollars available, as a burgeoning lower and immigrant classes pay less into the system than they pulls out, burdensome corporate and individual taxes retard economic growth and takings by the Treasury, and more people (baby boomers) living longer and longer craving more and more care. Meanwhile, innovative medical procedures and equipment drive the cost of providing care up. Rationing again takes place, in the form of unsupported drugs or surgeries, age limits for cancer treatments or dialysis, and enforced end-of-life hospice. The government is the messenger, and at times the villain, but really it's just economics playing out the only way it can when doling out scarce resources.
So far, nearly none of these topics have been confronted intelligently in the current debate over here. In my conversations with friends and family, everyone acknowledges them but not one supporter of Obama's proposed reforms can explain how what has happened in every single nation with nationalized care can't or won't happen here.
I get varying reports from Britain's NHS, but by and large it focuses on care shortages, high taxation, denials of treatment, impenetrable bureaucracy, and dissatisfaction. I'm confident that there is more to what percolates out in the news, so I ask what has been your experience with your care? What is the future of the system? Is there a shift towards private coverage, cash-based care? Are there enough competent doctors?
If you were helping reform the American system, knowing what you know from your own system, what would you recommend? What would you warn against?
I work in health care, and deal with this every single day on the legislative and lobbying front. I'm familiar with the economics of the US system, and most of the flaws.
Fire away.
