What’s the result? Fewer providers, higher costs, and more pressure on hospitals for treatment rather than clinics, where treatments are both more efficient and available. We’re already seeing this in Medicare as providers stop taking new clients in the program. The compensation supposedly controls costs, but it only controls pricing, and the costs of providing service outstrip the compensation. Under those circumstances, providers have to either stop taking Medicare patients or fold. (emphasis mine)How costs are controlled in Oregon: Try for a politically popular medical problem to increase your chances of treatment. (short video)
President Obama, August 19: "We are God's partners in matters of life and death,"
Andrew Klavan: "No. We're not."
If the current proposals succeed in increasing the cost and complexity of getting healthcare even further, we can move on to a Canadian-style single payer system, where costs are controlled partly by delays in medical care, particularly for chronic conditions. Video, brain tumor survivor.
Compare U.S. proposals to British system. Why not set up tax credits for people who have a hard time affording insurance, instead? Why not give tax breaks for pre-paid health care to individuals, rather than to employers, to make insurance truly portable? Why not encourage Medical Savings Accounts? How about tort reform with compensation of those injured by medical treatment - without the lottery-style winners and losers in the current tort system?
There are lots of good ideas out there which would not turn more control over health care to the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment