From the inbox: serious question
I think there are a couple of point off the top of my head.
1) modern health care is too expensive to expect "treatment" pay as you go to function properly unless the payment system which is completely skewed in the US changes. Have you looked at what the Doctor bills you and compare what the insurance company pays... and then look at what you are charged by the insurance company? Purchasing power purchasing power purchasing power. Also MRI machines are expensive... 2) Reforming the system is easier than completely changing how we do business in the health care sector--moving doctors into salaried positions and/or creating massive subsidies for individuals to buy treatment on the open market without some kind of public option, or insurance exchange such as is in the senate bill just doesn't seem efficient--we have to get costs under control,. 3) The question of this being about health care and we're talking about reforming insurance skips one challenge--that is the political environment. The Republicans are already fighting tooth and nail while the Democrats are trying to reform current practices and current systems inefficiencies that have reaped devastating effects on the American population and will bankrupt us as a nation if things don't change. There is no way politically speaking, that finding ways to provide care outside of an insurance based system would fly. It'd be seen as some Soviet resurgence or some nonsense being "shoved down American throats" or whatever the tune is that's coming from Glen Beck. The guys an entertainer so the hyperbole has to be taken with a grain of salt--I mean I'm a blogger, I walk that line as well. But still the propaganda is taken as literal by a lot of people. 4) I forwarded the question on to economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research who is a whole lot smarter than I am...
As I tried to have a discussion with a friend about healthcare tonight, it was frustrating. Just because I disagree about things doesn't mean I am stupid or don't get it. Do I believe a public option would help people? Yes. Do I believe insurance is the reason the cost of healthcare is inflated to the point where Americans can't afford it? Yes. Do I believe more insurance will solve that problem? No. I believe that insurance is not healthcare. And I am tired of this healthcare debate being all about insurance.
I think there are a couple of point off the top of my head.
1) modern health care is too expensive to expect "treatment" pay as you go to function properly unless the payment system which is completely skewed in the US changes. Have you looked at what the Doctor bills you and compare what the insurance company pays... and then look at what you are charged by the insurance company? Purchasing power purchasing power purchasing power. Also MRI machines are expensive... 2) Reforming the system is easier than completely changing how we do business in the health care sector--moving doctors into salaried positions and/or creating massive subsidies for individuals to buy treatment on the open market without some kind of public option, or insurance exchange such as is in the senate bill just doesn't seem efficient--we have to get costs under control,. 3) The question of this being about health care and we're talking about reforming insurance skips one challenge--that is the political environment. The Republicans are already fighting tooth and nail while the Democrats are trying to reform current practices and current systems inefficiencies that have reaped devastating effects on the American population and will bankrupt us as a nation if things don't change. There is no way politically speaking, that finding ways to provide care outside of an insurance based system would fly. It'd be seen as some Soviet resurgence or some nonsense being "shoved down American throats" or whatever the tune is that's coming from Glen Beck. The guys an entertainer so the hyperbole has to be taken with a grain of salt--I mean I'm a blogger, I walk that line as well. But still the propaganda is taken as literal by a lot of people. 4) I forwarded the question on to economist Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research who is a whole lot smarter than I am...
There are systems, like in the UK and Denmark, where the government directly provides health care. There are many positive features of such a system. after all, if we want people to get the care they need, what role is insurance playing. On the other hand, it would be a huge leap from here to there, even if it is desirable. I like to think in terms of steps that are obtainable. The idea of getting from here to single-payer is I think too big of a jump to accomplish. Going further to a fully government-run system is way too far. So, I would take the public option, if we could get it and see where it goes. if we can't get it, let's get more people covered and take another run at fixing the system as soon as possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment