Bill I have a study by the GAO around here on that issue and if I can find it I’ll drag it out this weekend, but I don’t think the problem is nearly as large as the Docs make it out to be.

The big problem is the deaths and injuries from malpractice, misuse of drugs and hospital born infections.

There’s another study that shows when the Docs went on strike in L.A. in 1978 (?) the death rate declined. What if the farmers went on strike and hunger ended?

MW

MHW

Corporations are creatures of the state, and big insurance companies evidently favored creatures of the state. The system as it is presently apparently benefits some big companies, big “health maintenance organizations,” big insurance companies, big hospitals in some cases, and big government agencies.

It isn’t at all clear that adding more government to the mix is going to make health care better. What is wanted is less government, fewer regulations, more competition, less control by the government over the choices and individual can make with his own body, much fewer laws dictating who can provide what services to whom.

The USA has the most stringent rules on access to drugs, which has led to the USA having very poor health compared to other industrialized countries. The USA has the most cartel-dominated pharmaceutical industry and the most cartel-dominated medical industry, and these have also caused very poor health results.

I’m glad that Steve Trinward sees a need to put “free markets” in quotes when he attacks them as not solving the problem of government-corporation collusion. However, the kind of a market that would exist if the collusion between big government and big corporations were removed would be a more free market.

Perhaps open, transparent, and free markets would come closer to what is needed. Certainly, just reducing this or that regulation is only going to benefit the corporations with the big lobbying budgets which would likely choose which regulations are eliminated (and which are increased).

Exactly.

(I also agree that tort reform is part of this, altho I would say it is more a matter of penalizing SEVERELY all failed malpractice suits, so the frivolous ones get weeded out faster.)

deregulating services across state lines; moving away from “employee benefits” model (to break the stranglehold of a HUGE client-base for the statist quo) and toward personal control of one’s “coverage”; freezing provider-payback for Medicare and other scams; opening alternative healing methods to the general realm of “coverable” treatments; lifting the roof off medical savings accounts; shifting focus to prevention and wellness instead of palliative aftercare; cracking down on the fraudulent practices (and false advertising) of Big Pharma (along with their collusion partner, the FDA); moving away from the “take this pill/ask your doctor” mindset … to better diets, exercise and common sense in personal habits (and then offering HUGE discounts to anyone who makes these changes, and keeping the high rates on those who do not!)

All but the final one involve deregulation, but with an eye to a stronger enforcement of fraud and deceptive practices across the entire “healthcare” industry … And that one is more about persuasion and incentives than anything else.

Until we shift that whole mindset, we have little hope of fixing this mess; the issue of whether or not “force” is involved is secondary to that change of perspective …

Good points – I generally agree.

I don’t think that is why.

There could be a mixed system like they have in Canada. But a great deal of basic health care should not be run like WalMart. For profit medical care is inferior, as far as the quality and quantity of medical care.

Just like there are “paralegals” there should be “paradoctors”, who could perform minor procedures and easy tasks with just a nominal amount of training, say 2 years or so. The increased supply of professionals would lower rates.

Tort reform against Doctors should also be done. A large cost in health care are the insurance premiums that Doctors and Hospitals have to pay to protect themselves from lawsuits.

The expansion of Health Savings Accounts would also be an answer. You have to have an economy in any health care system that discourages abuse of that system. With HSA’s you have a tax deferred account that is credited with your contribution. As you use it, it is drawn down. Some form of “national catastrophic insurance” could supplement it, at lets say, a $10,000 deductible. The first $10,000 would be liable from your HSA.

Your HSA would be refunded back to you at some point if your dont use it, or rolled into your IRA etc. This would be an incentive to not run to the doctor with a sniffle, and would reward those people who take care of their health or avoid injury. A true market based answer.

The government enforcement of the prescription drug cartel is ruining this country’s health. They’re representing both corporate lobbyists and power freak bureaucrats and are trying to micro-manage our food, medicine, and water. This is something Greens, Libertarians, and others should be able to agree on.

Then we could allow midwives to deliver more infants. In Europe they deliver about 75% of infants while in the U.S. less than 10%. And in Europe the survival rates are higher and costs lower with midwives. Is it fare to deprive mothers of this choice?

Doctors and hospitals should post their rates so that people can price comparison shop.

Nurse might be allowed to do more, but that would require lifting regualtions.

Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act and permit insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines would allow more price comparison.

Repeal certificate of need in the states where we still have them would increase compatition and lower costs.