The future of health care in America
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “The future of health care in America.”
Before we implement a solution, it’s prudent to identify the problem.
When looking at the causes of America’s health care problems, it’s difficult to see any government solution that would be acceptable. The so-called “single payer” models do nothing to alleviate the problem. All they do is shift the cost from employers to the government, which uses its coercive power of taxation to meet that cost. Given that it is unlikely that Americans are willing to reduce their demand for the best health care in the world, the only way the government can reduce cost is to simply refuse to pay for certain services, treatments and technologies.
Except that it’s not the best health care in the world. It’s amusing how you prove that poiint:
Monarchs and the wealthy flock
That’s your bar? That the wealthy flock to the US for specialists? How about we take a look at, oh, I don’t know… life expectancy?
US #1 in dollars spent, #27 in life expectancy (right above Cuba!).
WE BEAT CUBA,
*Chant* We’re #27, We’re #27, We’re #27, *Chant*
We are number one in innovation and cost, but what about access, burden to businesses, percentage of GDP, availability, etc.
You can get this crazy chant of “USA #1” going and maybe even get a few people to believe it, but that doesn’t make it so. Flag waving won’t cure what ails us. Your piece does not address the pertinent issues at hand like lack of access/lack of preventative care for 45 million people and the cost that puts on hospitals, unfair advantage that both Japan and Canada have in business, etc.
Your answer is flag waving. In your Utopian world, you can run around with your flag and scream “We’re #1”, it will magically be so. Thank goodness, most people aren’t buying that line of shit anymore.
Posted by Rabid Yellow Dog on June 16, 2009 at 1013 hrs
The reason that America lags in things like life expectancy has much more to do with our culture than our health care system. There’s only so much you can do with a population that subsists on Big Macs and television. That’s not to say that we should restrict our liberty on our choice of lifestyles, but to assume that such a ranking is the sole result of the quality of care is ridiculous.
Posted by Owen on June 16, 2009 at 1029 hrs
The intellectual rigour you apply to your column is seriously lacking.
“We have seen what this means in other countries with government-run health care systems. Requests for screenings are denied if the patient doesn’t fit the profile. Old folks who are likely to die soon anyway are denied treatment.”
This statement is one of the examples of shoddy commentary. As an ‘old’ ‘sick’ Canadian I can assure you through heart attacks, lung collapses, diabetes, etc etc I have received excellent care at no out of pocket costs to me other than the taxes I gladly pay for a superior health care. My medical friends in the United States have more than once confirmed this fact.
The propaganda that we see on your TV stations about our health system makes us laugh at how gullible a certain segment of the population is to false and misleading information.
Why if your health system is so wonderful doesn’t the rest of the industrial world’s population rise up and throw off the shackles of their socialized medicine. I do know why and so do you Owen.
This column is not worthy of you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1043 hrs
www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/hl856.cfm
A decently written article on the positives, negatives, and myths of a single-payer healthcare system (article focuses on Canada.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1125 hrs
Anothe reason we’re #27. Inner cities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1203 hrs
Your piece does not address the pertinent issues at hand like lack of access/lack of preventative care for 45 million people
And this, like much of the other drivel for single-payer, is an exaggeration of the actual number. How many of those 45mil are illegal aliens? Voluntarily uninsured (i.e. healthy individuals who don’t want to spend the money for insurance)? Wealthy (who pay out of pocket.)?
Journalists and politicians also frequently neglect to mention that ~45 percent of the uninsured will be insured again within four months, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1215 hrs
Why would we use life expectancy as a measure of health care? Life expectancy data includes infant mortality, for which there are no uniform data collection standards, and accidental deaths, which a health care system addresses not at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1248 hrs
Interesting responses from the comments here. I too thought that there were major problems with socialized medicine. For example, all those stories about Canadians coming over to the US for major medical care because they would have to wait too long to receive that care in Canada. Or because they can’t choose their doctors there. What is the motivation for a doctor to be better if he is not rewarded with more patients?
Posted by Pittsburgh Moving Company on June 16, 2009 at 1519 hrs
your piece does not address the pertinent issues at hand like lack of access/lack of preventative care for 45 million people
Here’s the breakdown components of the 45 million:
- 6.4 million = People on either Medicaid or S-Chip but were miscounted
- 4.3 million = Eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip but not yet signed up.
- 9.3 million = non US citizens
- 10.1 million = those with incomes over three times the poverty level.
- 5.0 million = uninsured including adults between 18 & 34 without kids
- 10.6 million = US citizens, below 300% of poverty levelOf the above the first three clearly don’t need coverage. The fourth group makes sufficient income that they should be able to afford coverage.
The second to last group is primarily young adults and childless couples in good health who have opted to not purchase health insurance coverage.
The only clear group in need is the last group.
So the 45 million figure is bogus. It’s really 10 million or slightly more at worst.
There’s got to be a way to help out the 3% of the population other than a complete government run health system. Don’t you think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1623 hrs
Wait a minute. Not everyone deserves health care. It is not a right, it something to be earned.
Of the 10.6 million below 300% of the pverty level how many are there because of their own life choices. The punk that does not make it through high school while knocking up three girls along the way and can not pass a drug test to get a job, does not deserve health care beyond patching up open wounds. The slut that has three kids while still in high school because it’s the thing to do does, not deserve health care.
The illegal aliens do not deserve health care on my back.I will pay for emergency room care, but not for heart lung transplants, liver transplants, reconstructive surgery, HIV medicine, drug rehab, eye exams, flu shots, vacinations, etc for slugs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2009 at 1711 hrs
MB:
- 6.4 million = People on either Medicaid or S-Chip but were miscounted
- 4.3 million = Eligible for Medicaid or S-Chip but not yet signed up.
- 9.3 million = non US citizens
...Of the above the first three clearly don’t need coverage.
I am a non-US citizen and I need and deserve the same coverage, since I pay 100% of the taxes and premiums you pay. It’s bad enough that I paid taxes for 30 years and never got to vote. There’s a strange confusion between citizen and taxpayer around here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 0859 hrs
The purpose of the 45 million breakdown was to highlight that the “problem” is much smaller and more manageable than we’re lead to believe. The bulk of the much quoted 45 million should not be included in the discussion.
First Shirt:
Agreed. I didn’t mean to imply that all of the 10.6 million should have some sort of free coverage but simply that the actual number is dramatically smaller than is advertised. Further review of the 10.6 million I have no doubt would eliminate people like those you point out.John Jost:
30 years of taxes and no vote? It would seem to me that if you’re here for 30 years that it would make sense to become a citizen. Then you’d get that vote.Before beginning, there are a few items need settling including: Is there a problem and if so how big is it? By breaking down the 45 million figure into components obviously a large portion of that group don’t belong there.
The ultimate size of the problem will help steer the direction of the solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 0940 hrs
Let’s say I am 60 and my job ends. If I cannot find another job with health insurance, I am screwed if my health declines.
Yes, I can COBRA for coverage through my old employer for a limited period of time, but I cannot buy an individual policy at that age without pretty extensive medical underwriting.
There is no incentive for a health insurer to sell an individual policy to anyone who isn’t young and healthy. And as the recent Congressional hearings confirm, even if an insurer sells you an individual policy it reserves the right to second guess and play the “preexisting condition card” if you submit claims later. (This isn’t a criticism, as people do commit fraud when they apply for coverage—it’s just like the person who waits to buy homeowners insurance until after the house is burning!)
If I am 60 and lose my job and cannot find another with health insurance I have no option but to pray that my health holds until age 65 when Medicare kicks in.
There are thousands of people in this situation, especially in the current economy. Each of these people is one medical disaster away from bankruptcy and complete financial ruin.
Perhaps one of the rocket scientists who is convinced we have no crisis can explain what the solution is for people in this situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 1108 hrs
John Jost:
I am a non-US citizen and I need and deserve the same coverage, since I pay 100% of the taxes and premiums you pay.
So, you expect the system to change for you, but you can’t take the step to become a citizen and make this a non-issue?!?
It’s bad enough that I paid taxes for 30 years and never got to vote.
See reply above…
There’s a strange confusion between citizen and taxpayer around here.
I think what is confused is the fact that you expect to get what “citizens of the US” get that you don’t because you don’t want to become a US citizen..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 1223 hrs
You’re darn right I don’t want to become a US citizen, not before this act is cleaned up a bit, which will take some time. Anyway, nations mean little when you can contact any in minutes or get there in hours, that’s why I don’t care much about what my citizenship is. Let’s think a bit wider, shall we?
I don’t want the system to change for me when it comes to health care, I’m as covered as you are. I just thought it was wrong to say that 9.3 million non-citizens “clearly don’t need coverage”.
About the vote, regardless of citizenship, my point was taxation without representation, which was not supposed to exist here. Things were not always this way, they were changed for “skin tone reasons”. Funny, considering my ultra-Caucasian complexion…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 17, 2009 at 2210 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 118
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:43 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).