US health care question

[Monoriu]

As much as I distrust governments, I think the US health care model is a good demonstration of what not to do. 

The HK government is now considering mandatory individual savings accounts for health care.

[Sheilbh]

I give Barney a thumbs up.

I agree.

[Sheilbh]

I think there's something to this:

19:12 GMT +00:00
Moderate is the new liberal

IF, WITH Barack Obama's acquiescence, Senate Democrats drop the public plan from their health-care reform bill, that measure will likely end up looking very much like The Economist's vision for health-care reform in America. Which is odd, because I never considered this paper a bastion of socialist thought.

Watching the debate over health-care reform play out in the media is a bit like watching the circus. There seem to be three rings that move from left to right across the stage (and political spectrum). In the first ring, liberal Democrats are having a debate with their moderate colleagues over the merits of different aspects of reform. Right now, it appears, the moderates are winning. In the second ring, moderate Republicans are having a debate with their conservative colleagues over reform. That debate seems to be going nowhere, with most Republicans staunchly opposed to any reform. In the third ring, we have the freak show: people screaming about socialism and death panels, and a few even packing heat outside presidential events.

If you're watching this spectacle on TV, then you're seeing a lot of rings two and three, and you may not realise that moderates are so far winning the fight over health-care policy. By pitting Barack Obama and his moderate allies in Congress against the more vocal fringes of the Republican Party, the media has moved the centre of the debate over reform far to the right. Add to this dynamic the idea that bipartisanship equals moderation and you may wonder, how can a health-care proposal be moderate if it attracts no Republican support?

But the truth is that Mr Obama has all but ceded control of reform to the likes of Max Baucus and other moderate senators. And if the media focused on that, we'd see that the debate over health care is occurring in the middle of the political spectrum, with the main focus on the "gang of six". As for bipartisanship, on this issue (and perhaps many others) it seems like a faulty measurement of moderation—how can it be accurate if the Republican's chief negotiator, the relatively moderate Chuck Grassley, says he might vote against a bill that gives him everything he wants?

On a more substantive level, Paul Krugman has accurately compared the reforms being mulled in the Senate to the Swiss system. It's a comparison we have also made on this blog. Those reforms would, far from creating a copy of the British or Canadian systems, keep the mixed public-private muddle in place, while adding things like individual mandates, guaranteed-issue and non-discriminatory clauses for all insurers, and subsidies for both the indigent and for insurers covering the sickest.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. If you like the status quo, then these changes (and any change that seriously addresses the flaws in America's health-care system) are probably going to seem radical to you. But if you believe that the American system is not functioning as it should and, therefore, needs to be reformed, the changes currently on the table are actually quite moderate. Or maybe, just maybe, we're all socialists.

[citizen k]

I think there's something to this:

...Or maybe, just maybe, we're all socialists.

That can't be it. 

[Admiral Yi]

subsidies for ... covering the sickest.

I was unaware of this provision.  Makes it a lot less punative against insurance companies and yet another reason why the public option is irrelevant.

[Valmy]

how can it be accurate if the Republican's chief negotiator, the relatively moderate Chuck Grassley, says he might vote against a bill that gives him everything he wants?

Because voting for anything the Democrats want, even if it was a bill for building a giant gold statue of Ronald Reagan, would get him lynched by the hysterical Hansmeisters of the world.

[Admiral Yi]

Chuck is kind of a nebbish.

[MadImmortalMan]

It's possible that, wonder of wonders, we might actually come out with something reasonable from all of this, you know. 

[Admiral Yi]

It's possible that, wonder of wonders, we might actually come out with something reasonable from all of this, you know. 

What would you consider reasonable?

[viper37]

As GF points out the problem isn't paying for minor problems - its paying for medium to major problems.  You get the odd story of someone being diagnosed with cancer and losing their house, for example.

it does happen around here too, you know.
Outside the big cities, health care is defficient, so people from remote areas have to travel at their own expenses.
Figure the price of an hotel for the duration of your treatment.

[KRonn]

I saw this in the news today. Seems like at least some good ideas by Whole Foods. And it also notes a few places where Federal or State law now hinders some cost savings, or different/better ideas for health care. 

Some controversial stuff there too though, as the bottom two links are about people who disagree and are now calling for boycotting Whole Foods.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-threaten-whole-foods-boycott-over-ceos-healthcare-stance-2009-8

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/19/whole-foods-boycotted-by-liberals-for-ceos-anti-obama-health-ca/

[DGuller]

I saw this in the news today. Seems like at least some good ideas by Whole Foods. And it also notes a few places where Federal or State law now hinders some cost savings, or different/better ideas for health care. 

Some controversial stuff there too though, as the bottom two links are about people who disagree and are now calling for boycotting Whole Foods.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.businessinsider.com/liberals-threaten-whole-foods-boycott-over-ceos-healthcare-stance-2009-8

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/19/whole-foods-boycotted-by-liberals-for-ceos-anti-obama-health-ca/

I responded to this piece earlier in this thread.  There is a good idea here or there, but on the whole it is based on ignorance of how health insurance works, and will make a truly bad system even worse.  It's also not that much different from the standard Republican non-solution that they present when they have to say something during the presidential debates when the subject of healthcare comes up. 

The boycott is just responding to ignorance with stupidity, of course.  It was incompetence, not malice, that should be attributed to the Whole Foods CEO writing that op-ed.

[Berkut]

While I think the entire "death panel" thing is contemptible, I cannot help but be amused at the shock and outrage from people who use the exact same tactics themselves when it suits them.

[Bluebook]

The more I learn about health care in the US, the more perplexed I get. I dont understand how US citizens can accept the current system. I truly dont.

[MadImmortalMan]

The more I learn about health care in the US, the more perplexed I get. I dont understand how US citizens can accept the current system. I truly dont.

Americans travel abroad and they see what others have and how it works. Then they come home and are afraid it's gonna turn out like what they saw so they say they'd rather keep what they have now than turn into that. Demagogues exploit this, effect magnifies, rise, repeat.