tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post114480921289462619..comments2023-10-14T05:25:42.347-04:00Comments on Elizabitchez: Superjumbo: Universal Healthcare Part IThe Red Queenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05878357454951384602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post-1144882295751900362006-04-12T18:51:00.000-04:002006-04-12T18:51:00.000-04:00Yes MDH- those issues will be discussed in the nex...Yes MDH- those issues will be discussed in the next post as well as how to keep care competitive while also assuring minimum care. <BR/><BR/>Truth is, we have minimum care now. In an emergency the unisured gets treated at the emergency room at a greater cost to everyone. the individuals that come in are charged a rate higher than those that have insurance and when they can't pay the cost is offset by hospitals increasing overall costs to insured patients. But if the uninsured had access to (less expensive)preventative care then a large portion of emergency care costs could be eliminated while providing better benefits to the patient.The Red Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878357454951384602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post-1144872930692063772006-04-12T16:15:00.000-04:002006-04-12T16:15:00.000-04:00mdh reminds me of a tangential issue that is bette...mdh reminds me of a tangential issue that is better addressed sooner than later: life expectancy.<BR/><BR/>Presently, the viewpoint infers that we should all live as long as possible. Hey, I enjoy the fact that old age is not as bad as it used to be, but sooner or later people living longer and longer will tax all related systems. Pensions and social security will at some point not be able to keep up with a growing senior population. Though geriatrics may be generally healthier than they used to be, they still will tend to require more health services than younger ones. What about nuring homes? They are already expensive for most, but will society want to build more?<BR/><BR/>What do we do? End research that promises longer life? Allow people only a certain amount of health care throughout their lifetime? Yes, a serious discussion needs to be had regarding these issues. I wish us luck!DeeKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300364318635588633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post-1144868527249301372006-04-12T15:02:00.000-04:002006-04-12T15:02:00.000-04:00There are a couple of things that will have to be ...There are a couple of things that will have to be addressed in any health care story in the US. Culture, innovation, rationing, & the economy. It may be the RQ is planning to thrash this out in upcoming posts…but I’ll just start the strawman story for her benefit.<BR/><BR/>Cultural issues influence public perceptions on this issue. Europe has a long commitment to a social market economy that has frankly been absent in the US. The public in Europe has made a decision that they are willing to pay higher taxes (61% in France for example, or 58% in the UK) in order to enjoy socialized healthcare & comprehensive unemployment & retirement protections from the government. Americans have traditional eschewed this approach. It just doesn’t resonate with the rugged individualist, “he pulled himself up by his bootstraps,” Hiratio Alger, mythos that pervades our thinking (I’m using the masculine on purpose here).<BR/><BR/>There are a number of studies that suggest that medical innovation & the diffusion of new technology is one of the primary drivers for rapidly climbing healthcare costs. Any universal health strategy will have to deal with this issue. Do we slow innovation to control costs? France, who by all accounts has a fucking fantastic system, has been desperately grappling with surging costs for years. I know that there’s waste out there that can be trimmed out, but I thinks its pretty much a truism that a large portion of new technology (drugs, artery stents, MRIs, etc) are driven by the potential for large profits. Which brings us to…<BR/><BR/>Rationing. I know, I know…there’s rationing now, & universal care would rationalize rationing (as it were). But there are tough decisions to be made here. What level of care is “just” & how do we decide who gets what? It’s obvious that “basic care” (whatever that might end up being) is better than having no care at all. But universal coverage will take those decisions out of the market & bring them into public decision making…& it ain’t simple. What do you do when all other forms of treatment have failed on little Jimmy & all that remains is a wildly expensive drug that only works in one out of a hundred cases. I know…right now Jimmy wouldn’t get the drug. But that’s only a greedy corporation refusing to help a little boy (par for the course), in a universal care world…the government is saying we can’t offer that drug because it’s too expensive. I submit that’s something else.<BR/><BR/>Economic growth. This one is also pretty damn big. There’s pretty good information/studies/data that social market economies grow a good deal slower that the American model. Even the social democrats in Europe feel compelled to admit that this is true. France has about double the unemployment of the US with a real crisis (much publicized lately) in opportunities for younger workers (23% I think).<BR/><BR/>All this being said…it seems obvious that a (very strong) case can be made for a slower growth, 35 hour work week, socially just, higher quality of life, approach to government. But these issues will have to be grappled with in a way that resonates with the American public…& that’s a tougher proposition.MdHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13973135211125766332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post-1144817259064148892006-04-12T00:47:00.000-04:002006-04-12T00:47:00.000-04:00I might include it- but then what would you write ...I might include it- but then what would you write in comments? Keep em coming- after writing this my brain hurts.The Red Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05878357454951384602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23246936.post-1144816861071044732006-04-12T00:41:00.000-04:002006-04-12T00:41:00.000-04:00You might add that foriegn firms can compete more ...You might add that foriegn firms can compete more effectively since their workers healthcare is covered by the government. Ford and GM (yeah I know their cars suck, but people still buy them) spend $1500 per car on healthcare. So people, in general, from other countries get better coverage and their firms can compete more effectively. A win-win for them.DeeKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11300364318635588633noreply@blogger.com