I will simply say they are wrong.
A single payor system does have bad aspects, just as any solution does.
BUT
At some point, doing nothing will cost more than those "bad aspects".
ALL CHOICES INVOLVE ECONOMIC COSTS. Some are "out of pocket" expenses, and some are "opportunity costs".
The opportunity costs of doing nothing rise as time passes, and the spiral of unaffordable health insurance continues.
For those who dislike single-payor systems, fine. Let's do all nothing for a few years and rely on some nebulous "free-market" solution to save us.
Keep crossing our fingers, and hope it all gets better, when all indications are it will only get worse.
Dude the whole "I disagree with the data, so it MUST be faulty" bit is getting a bit worn don't you think?
Don't you get tired of dismissing out-of-hand data that doesn't fit into your reality?
Perhaps I should elucidate a bit.
PWC does an issue paper every year where they take accounting and economic data from various sources, and attempt to identify the cost drivers that are increasing the costs of health care.
Increased malpractice insurance is in there to be sure, but is NOT the primary cause of the increases in health care costs in the US.
My post kinda implied that it was insignificant, and that is not entirely correcgt.
Tort reform would be a band-aid solution to a gushing wound that needs s ches and surgery, to borrow an apt metaphor.
"They", you know the people who don't exist, say the reason UHC wont work is because that when something is perceived as "free" that demand goes up for the "free" stuff.
So possibly, if you could convince people it isn't free, that there is going to some cost involved or make it more difficult to navigate the system, boy I can already hear the cat calls, maybe that would let the system do what it was created to do. Provide health care. But I find it hard to believe you are going to get people to enter the field of medicine, as Doctors, and dedicate themselves to 8 years of education for what a national health plan, run by the government, would pay them. I know England has a problem with it.
I'm not in favor of doing nothing. That's what we have been doing with oil production, and we will soon see $5.00 per gallon gas. We've been doing in essence no commercial development because of government interference. That's what universal health care will be. Government interference.
Think health care is expensive now? Just wait until it's free!
The solution is to take a realistic look at regulations and judicial harm. Let the free market handle more in a compe ive fashion rather than government dictates.
Tort reform is a big one. Start looking up or asking local physicians what they pay for malpractice insurance annually. Take that figure and divide by say 2080 for an hourly rate of what your time with the doctor costs.
A good aspect of government insurance is removal or the lawsuits. Think the governments going to pay malpractice to the degree court awards are? Wouldn't real tort reform and the compe ive free market be cheaper?
Consider also the numerous added costs of extra tests to cover their bases. If doctors misses something that proves to be relevant, they get their pants sued off. Therefore, they do, and we pay for too many unrelated tests for the one time they might miss something and get sued. That's one way we pay so much for lack of tort reform. Under government health care, they don't have to protect themselves from this, in fact, they will be discouraged from additional tests to save money. Even the tests they really think should be done!
Liability and payouts to patients should be limited to mistakes that should not have occurred. Real malpractice. Not any mistake that is possible. All medical procedures have some risk. Some more than others. This should be understood, and people should not get paid for claims that are known risks for a procedure, or known side effects for medicines.
If we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.
I will simply say you are wrong.
OK, Fair enough. However, consider mt last statement:
Tort reformIf we start with the free market ideas that single payer systems will force on us anyway, and it doesn't get better, then we can talk about single payer systems. Not until we try free market solutions first.
Stop procedures done as a CYA measure rather than ones deemed nedded
Etc.
I have considered your statement and will simply say you are wrong.
And I will simply say you are being a horses ass again.
I will simply say you are wrong about that too.
Whatever.
Don't you agree we should try smaller changes that can be reasonable before changing the entire system?
That's been happening for the past fifteen years.
Where did it say that? That's simply ludicrous. The Government negotiates the best pricing on the planet with "Big Pharma".
Not that I've seen. Many doctors still pay over $250,000 annually for insurance!
You're blind.
In this case the demand for "too much" free stuff isn't a problem, when the "free stuff" is preventive care.
Preventive care is cheaper than curative care. You WANT people to consume it, because it is CHEAPER than the alternative, especially when you look at the country/society as a whole.
If you like, I can provide a quote from one of my insurance textbooks.
Meh. Have tort reform of some sort. Admittedly "defensive" medicine is practiced and contributes to it.
Malpractice insurance is only a component of the price increases for health care we have seen.
After that is done, what is your next "free market" solution?
Under a free-market solution, wouldn't a doctor attempt to game the system and do as many tests as they could get away with in order to charge patients with insurance anyways?
How would tort reform avoid this?
tort reform in TX caused patients bills to go down? or what is simply the TX Repugs protecting the insurance companies and doctors?
I think the biggest issue with private insurance is that they're no different that any other company. They fight tooth and nail with providers, but it's not to lower the customer prices, it's to maximize profits. Their priority are shareholders, not customers.
I sincerely don't know what can you do about it. If you put a cap on profits, then they'll just leave (like what Jersey did with car insurance some years ago).
It's an issue that I think needs to be addressed at some point if you want to make the system any more 'fair'.
That is an excellent question.
Individual states have enacted various versions of tort reform. If, as WC would seem to suggest, lawsuits and defensive medicine were a primary cost driver, then Texas and other states should see a strong difference in the rate of increases in health care costs.
Since this is WC's case to make, it is his burden of proof to show this. The PWC paper supports my thesis that malpractice insurance is a relatively minor part of the price increase. If you like, I will post some direct quotes later.
Is that how you do chemistry too?
"I will simply say that the data suggesting oxidation rates for that solution are wrong."
I call bull . If you have data that suggests the PWC paper is wrong, present it.
Data, not your bull opinion.
I see no data on tort reform affects on health care costs forthcoming.
Since there is no data to back up the assertion that tort reform makes a fart's worth of difference, we must conservatively assume it doesn't affect health care cost increases as much as proponents claim.
Now what is the next "free-market" solution to the problem? Step up. If all you have is criticisms of someone else's idea, you got jack. I want a plan of action.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
