SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the But-I-*like*-getting-50-different-invoices-for-one-hospital-stay dept.
There is an instinct among political pundits to confuse caution for practicality — an assumption that those who advocate for incremental change are being reasonable, while those pushing for bold reforms aren’t. This is seen most starkly in the debate around health care reform, despite the fact that the “practical” pushers of limited reform fail to address the real problems in our health care system.
We all recognize that the status quo isn’t working. We spend more per person than any other country on health care, but we aren’t getting any bang for our buck. We have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates and more preventable deaths, and too many personal bankruptcies are due at least in part to medical bills.
[...]Time to get real. As an economist who has spent decades studying our health care system, I can tell you that Medicare for All advocates are the only ones who are being reasonable, because theirs is the only plan that will control health care costs while finally achieving universal coverage.
The problem with incremental plans, whether they are public options, buy-ins to Medicare or Medicaid, or pumping more money into subsidies in the Affordable Care Act's individual marketplace, is that they preserve the private health insurance system weighing down our health care. [...]they are leaving the main reason for our system’s dysfunction in place: the multipayer, for-profit financing model.
Commercial insurance companies are nothing more than middle men. They add no value to our system, but they do drive up costs with their bloated claims departments, marketing and advertising budgets and executive salaries. We pay for all of these things before a single dollar is spent on the delivery of care.
They also create extra costs for providers who need large administrative staffs to deal with billing systems, accounting for as much as $100,000 per physician.
Any plans short of Medicare for All leaves these costs in place. In other words, they leave hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings on the table.
[...]Gerald Friedman, a health care and labor economist, is an economics professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst and the director of The Hopbrook Institute.
[Related]:
Democrats' promise of Medicare for All is remarkably misguided and unrealistic
Trump wants to drop a neutron bomb on Obamacare. Over to you, 2020 voters.
Take it from me, tweaks won't fix health care. Dems should focus on Medicare for All.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:41PM (1 child)
The problem with believing fantasy is that it's not reality.
The Budget-Minimizing Bureaucrat? Empirical Evidence from the Senior Executive Service [jstor.org]
Free market ideology doesn’t work for health care [publicintegrity.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @01:54PM
Your links are great examples of that. Not really sure why that's supposed to be relevant to the topic at hand though. In the first link, the conclusion is:
Which is irrelevant. Just because a bureaucrat might prefer (assuming the researcher measured in a viable way that preference) something in an intellectual sense doesn't mean that's what they'll do when presented with a real world opportunity rather than a survey or similar device that doesn't cost their departments anything.
The second is just silly. The author offers absolutely no supporting evidence for his assertion of the title. Instead, it's a giant argument from tradition - nobody does free market health care thus it must be a bad idea.