[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which costs are you talking about? The cost to the insurance companies to provide the insurance? The insurance premiums? The price that hospitals, doctors, various health providers charge? Don't all those providers also have to be insured? How about the costs of litigation? The costs of regulation? Little is actually said in your sentence, and much is implied. The major implication is that costs need to be controlled. That begs the question, by whom? I guess your next sentence is the answer.

I'd think that if the consumer can't afford the care or taxpayers can't fund Medicare the rest is moot.

Of course--the government. Not just the government in an old fashioned American Constitutional self government expressed at local and State levels way, but the Federal Government acting in its typical current mode of top down illegal way. Pass a bad unconstitutional bill. And hooray to some socialist Britts telling Americans what is economically good. And what good form--pass a bad bill so that it can be fixed. Not fix a bill (that is not legally the Federal gvt's to legislate) so that it can be passed. Pass it then fix it. Talk about being out of control!

Before Medicare, 1/2 of seniors didn't have any health coverage. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the States alone either can't or don't want to address the issues. Sure, we could do what Rand says and just let the sick ones die, but the taxpayers would still have to clean up the bodies.

As for the Economist, they had a good article some time ago stating exactly that. I thought you'd appreciate another sovereign nations perspective

We the people are told that we want reform. By whom? Rigged polls? Reform is a convenient word. It covers a lot and can mean many things--some contradictory. If you surround it with leading other words, it can sound like exactly the thing you want. It can also lead you away from what really angers you--the thing you mentioned in your first sentence--cost. This is just a guess (I didn't take a poll), I think most people want to pay less (for everything). The illegal HCB doesn't promise to do that. Maybe it will be "fixed." But it is not a true re-forming. It is a third party pay system with more government controls. It is an escalation of the "vector" in which we've been heading.

Good to agree we don't think polls are necessary on the subject. I think the average person can see the yearly increases in their contributions to coverage and reductions in services, if they actually have it in the first place.

I believe the CBO did estimate cost reductions of 7-10% long-term, primarily to Medicare. While perhaps the benefits of tort reform are over-estimated, I think this would be an easy savings. Interstate competition and ending the price fixing on prescription drugs would also help, but good luck getting them passed. Reducing fraud would be a big savings buy might require more government oversight (certainly centralized records) that many oppose.

The crazy thing is how much more the US spends on health care per person (40% or so?) than other developed nations and how little we're getting for that extra investment. I don't really see how just regulating less will address this issue in a meaningful way. Increasing competition might certainly lower costs but also bears the risk of reducing quality of service below existing standards...and then you're back to more regulation.

I've seen proposals that believe that if health care providers were paid on total treatment rather than individual treatments doctors would have an incentive to administer less unnecessary medications and tests.

The bottom line is that more action is needed to continue to reform the system. I'd prefer a combination of the best ideas where complimentary, but the reality is nobody has the perfect solution...at least not that I've seen.

-spence