Mish Shedlock has a fascinating take on how business will respond to forced health care coverage... for many it will be cheaper to pay the fines than offer the health care. Others plan to cancel their insurance, pay the low fines, and then, because you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions, sign up if you get sick. Why we allow some 500 people to determine all health care for all americans for all time is absurd... but it is a great diversion from events around us that are leading USA into war.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Some people will game the system, but at the end of the day more people will be able to go to the doctor when they get sick.
I don't think this is true on several levels..
1. There was no one in USA who was denied medical care at any time. They may not have had insurance, but they had medical care, called public clinics and emergency rooms. These are not ideal, but they were monsters created by medicare.
2. Now the govt will define what constitutes medical care, and what constitutes and ailment. Free markets are better at that.
3. Rationing is inevitable. Where we until a few weeks ago had a system in which no one could be denied care, we will in effect have govt rules allowing people to deny care. This is no improvement.
It is impossible to some 500 people in DC to decide one and for all on a static system that will support health care for 300 million people. the premise is absurd.
Time will show that at the end of the day fewer people will get access to worse care at a higher price. At that point, will you change your mind about socialized medicine?
To your conclusion, "Time will show that at the end of the day fewer people will get access to worse care at a higher price." I agree that the main components are quality of care, cost, and number of people covered. Per your point #1 whether or not someone is covered is debatable.
To my mind the best way to measure cost and quality of care are the following:
Cost - Total amount spent on healthcare per capita
Quality of care - Life expectancy and infant mortality rate
By what methodology do suggest we compare countries to decided on the best system?
I would compare user satisfaction with a system... as in education, amount spent has little to do with satisfaction... as to outcomes, life expectancy and infant mortality, these are very slippery figures.
Socialist systems always race to the bottom when it comes to care, so comparing countries will only allow us to see some countries are not failing as fast as others, and thus look good.
Better to compare user satisfaction, both doctors and patients, than any other methodology.
Post a Comment