Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 09 2019, @12:41PM   Printer-friendly
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.

Medicare For All

[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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:13PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:13PM (#826861)

    It's not an argument from authority, you may question the quality of medical training, but those doctors have at least been through medical school then been supervised during residency and can lose their licenses if they're incompetent. Not to mention malpractice lawsuits.

    The medical school education still has limits, but it's mostly because the ability to conduct research is limited by ethics rules. In the future, that will change as scientists learn how to create our own organs that can be used to directly test medications and treatments on without the ethical problems.

    Joe Blow, even with the most accurate of medical text libraries, is not likely to be anywhere near as accurate in treatment. And if you don't trust the result, you can always get a second opinion from another doctor.

    But, to suggest that this is merely an argument to authority is rather misleading, there is research that goes into this and that research is in continual development. Arguing that it's just because these people are experts is ignorant.

    But then again, as a founding member of the ignoranti, you're hardly out of character here.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:56PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @04:56PM (#826893) Journal

    It's not an argument from authority, you may question the quality of medical training, but those doctors have at least been through medical school then been supervised during residency and can lose their licenses if they're incompetent. Not to mention malpractice lawsuits.

    Sorry, the argument from authority continues. The obvious rebuttal to this nonsense is that nurses and a fair number of lab techs also have the necessary training. As to the last two items on your list, a person reviewing blood tests no matter what sort of license or lack thereof, they might have, is still subject to malpractice lawsuits.

    Joe Blow, even with the most accurate of medical text libraries, is not likely to be anywhere near as accurate in treatment. And if you don't trust the result, you can always get a second opinion from another doctor.

    Joe Blow doesn't have to be.