Defending the Truth

garysher · 01-18-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vote_progressive

It's less of a question of supporting universal healthcare than the approach. McCain (in my understanding) wants healthcare for every American, but will obviously choose a market approach.

Does that mean that Americans' health has a lower priority than making profits?

I am a Christian but won't claim to know enough about this issue to know which way is best. Obviously, for those who have healthcare in the U.S. (about 85% of us) have the access to the worlds best healthcare. If you want proof just look at all the people coming to the U.S. for advanced treatments. However, we also have the worlds most expensive healthcare.

You also need to look at:
1. The millions of Americans who are UNDER-insured and therefore are denied access to health care
2. The millions of Americans who have to travel to other countries because they cannot afford health care in the US

I doubt most of the solutions tauted by either side would dramatically lower costs (e.g. tort reform, efficiency increases through better medical management, etc.). Obviously doctors are compensated at a much greater rate in the U.S. than in other countries (particularly specialists like cardiac or neuro surgeons); however, this also helps us attract the best talent.

Other countries also have highly talented specialists who work both privately and for their national health services. This is considered a form of national service just like serving in the military.

If a doctor's only interest in life is earning as much money as he can then he has chosen the wrong profession.

Moreover, we pay more for drugs notwithstanding our pharmaceutical companies produce and export more drugs than any other nations pharmaceutical industry. In essence the American consumer subsidizes our pharmaceutical industry (and in effect we keep global drug prices lower & our companies more competitive by doing this).

Additionally, our insurance companies are a huge source of economic activity. For example, they are the prime investors in commercial real estate, fixed income products, and to a lesser extent equities. So we do reap huge rewards from the way our healthcare system works that are unseen by the average person.

How does any of that immense overhead help people get better or improve their health?

Why not spend that money on hospitals and medical professionals instead of offices and paper pushers?

I doubt its realistic to try and change this system. I think the better path would probably be to provide tax credits (with credits the government actually gives you money, versus deductions where the government merely lowers your tax burden & in many cases it doesn't even do that if your deductions don't exceed the standard & personal exemption). Perhaps the federal government could also create a block grant program to states so they can run it. I know here in NY state any individual who doesn't have employer provided healthcare can buy into our state program (which is as good as the average health insurance plan) for about $230 per month. Of course NY state has among the highest healthcare costs in the nation (if not the highest) so we have to assume this is the high end.

Therefore, a tax credit of less than $3,000 for individuals and a graduated increase in the credit amount for those with dependents (depending on the number of dependents) should do the trick, provided every state buys into the federal block grant program (and they will -- I've never heard of a state yet that refused free money from the feds).

Although I have good healthcare myself providing healthcare to every American is a huge priority of mine in my voting choices. However, I don't think we need to throw out the good with the bad. I also don't think it makes much sense to demonize insurance or pharmaceutical companies accept where warranted. To my knowledge the price to earnings ration of insurance and pharmaceutical stock is about average (if not below average). If the capital appreciation and earnings per share were inordinately above the market average obviously a good case would exist to look at pricing, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

Satisfactory earnings per share for health insurance companies relies on denying service to the sick and the dying. That is the mechanism used to keep down pricing.

waitingtables · 01-18-2008, 07:16 PM

Exactly. Insurance companies are not in it for health care, they are in it for profit care. It's a no win situation for the people.

vote_progressive · 01-18-2008, 10:45 PM

You guys all raise good points. I agree the profit motive creates a conflict of interest. I guess I'm just trying to be realistic. Like I conceded in my post I'm not real educated about this topic. However, it would be quite an economic shock for us to convert to a single payer government ran health care system?

I would like to learn more about how other countries run their systems. The problem of course is we have a much different country than German, Japan, or Scandinavia. We have huge immigrant populations, a huge number of undereducated people, and large segments of the population who live in a cycle of poverty. If we were to make such a shift it would require fixing all of these problems simultaneously and slowly.

However, the political resistance would be high. Not only from insurance groups, but also from doctors. The cost of a medical education is enormous as is the cost of malpractice insurance. Perhaps there's a way to accomplish the goals we all seek in a way which would be less of a shock to our economy?