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: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:46PM (3 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @05:46PM (#826940) Journal

    The "Free market" brought us Insulin that costs many diabetes sufferers thousands of dollars per month.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:29PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @06:29PM (#826981) Journal

    The "Free market" brought us Insulin that costs many diabetes sufferers thousands of dollars per month.

    Good thing you used scare quotes there. Someone might have otherwise thought you were speaking of an actual free market. Remember my first sentence about breaking free markets? This is the sort of thing you get when you do that.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:09PM (1 child)

      by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday April 09 2019, @07:09PM (#827021) Journal

      So tell us how to fix the non-true Scotsman's "Free Market".

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 09 2019, @10:46PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 09 2019, @10:46PM (#827147) Journal
        For the example you gave, increase competition for insulin. You can do that by greatly curbing the FDA's negative regulatory impact on competition. That's the primary reason the market inequality exists in the first place. Needless to say, it's not a free market caused problem.