US health care debate.
Speaking from across the pond I find the public/private health discussion in the US utterly incredible.
The notion that private insurance companies are concerned with providing "choice" strikes me as utter nonsense. Private companies are concerned with profit, not choice.
And it doesn't take a genius to work out that it is more profitable not to treat someone that it is to treat them.
The US position on the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems speaks for itself. The US comes in at number 37, just after Costa Rica and in front of Slovenia and Cuba, and it does so despite spending more on health care than any other country in the world.
There are some things which work best when run for profit, by producing competition and allowing consumers choice. There are some things which should not be run for profit but should be aimed at simply giving each person exactly what they need and no more. Health care is definitely in that latter category.
How is it possible for a company to make a profit providing health care? Either by overcharging for insurance premiums or by denying operations. There's no moral way to make a profit in that business. It costs what it costs. And the only thing of concern to that industry should be the welfare of the patient. Nothing else.
5 comments:
Insurance is merely a legalized form of gambling, and insurance companies, like casinos, set the odds in thier favor.
This might be defensible were there no other way in which to do it, but there are ways to provide health care for all that do not require a parasitic middle man.
Especially when that parasitic middle man is in the whole business simply to make profit.
The truth is that the Republicans loathe a public option because they know it would be popular and undermine all of their arguments about self sufficiency.
That's why they fear it so much despite of all their waffle. They fear that it would work.
I find it weird that they are speaking of cost as if this is all an additional cost on the system. If you remove everything people are already spending on insurance and other health costs that could be replaced by a government system, it doesn't necessarily add costs.We aren't suddenly going to have more doctors and hospitals either, so we aren't increasing the quantity of care, but just who pays for it. It may also take a lot of anti-competitive pressure off of U.S. businesses competing with foreign competitors without health care costs.
A corollary to what you were saying
about the profit of treatment: It is more profitable for drug companies to treat people than it is for them to cure them. WHat we have created is a system built on keeping people sick and paying outrageous monthly fees.
I'm against moving in this direction, since in the long run it is going to bloat and fail, but in my typically anti-moderate fashion I'm still calling it an improvement over where we have been going. Once again, this isn't a failure of free market desire of profit, but of a public/private partnership where the government forces people to purchase private insurance and creates a captive consumer.
Well said Daveawayfromhome, but when gambling, you tend to have a good chance of winning; with insurance you have already been paying monthly fees as if you were paying into a pool, but when you get sick, not only do they try to weasel out of paying, but they raise your rates enough that you end up paying for your treatment a couple more times over. It isn't so much gambling as a Ponzi scheme. If a large disaster strikes, where do you think your money will be? gone. I'm not even so sure that the insurance companies are really so much taking money as profit as they are just blowing it on administration. They are just like little governments.
I think you are right that Republicans fear that this will work. I think there is more at stake here than how much people are spending on health care in a couple ears. THe test as to whether this 'worked' or not should be asking if in thirty years, people will be happier, healthier, and freer because of it. I'm not convinced, but our current path is guaranteed failure, and soon.
" It costs what it costs. And the only thing of concern to that industry should be the welfare of the patient. Nothing else. "
Makes sense. Since when does anything this country does make sense?
It is more profitable for drug companies to treat people than it is for them to cure them. WHat we have created is a system built on keeping people sick and paying outrageous monthly fees.
Well said, SP, and that's why profit should have nothing to do with health care.
Nunya, the majority of Americans appear sensible enough to want this. The government just need to find the courage to make it happen.
And, if they did, I guarantee that no future Republican administration would ever be stupid enough to attempt to undo it.
Even Thatcher found herself having to pretend that she believed in the NHS as, to publicly oppose it, would be political suicide in this country.
Post a Comment