Originally intended as a family blog it is now a more extended family place for civil discussions of religion and politics – you know those things we shouldn’t talk about and need to. It is also a free forum for any and all ideas included recent cat stories. Please share and comment as you see fit. You may contact me at hughdrennan@gmail.com to ask for writing privileges.
One potentially good thing is that if the Supreme Court strikes down health reform it puts us back on an eventual path to single payer. 'Obamacare' was basically the last best chance to save our existing for-profit system as it is, IMHO.
The profit model for healthcare just doesn't work. The system isn't designed to make people healthy, it's designed to make profits for insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Making people healthy is a very poor business model: No repeat business.
This is how you get a system that is the most expensive in the world, without the population getting any healthier than the other systems.
The whole reason single-payer wasn't a part of health reform discussion was because Obama wanted some GOP support. He figured if he used their idea instead (the insurance mandate) they'd go for it. Of course, the assumption that the 'Party of NO' would back even its own ideas turned out to be shatteringly wrong, but at least once it's stricken down then single-payer becomes the only reform option left.
Single-payer, which is simply Stalinization of healthcare (turning control over to an unaccountable monopoly, won't fly. A small minority supports it.
I'm glad that when the government proposes very bad ideas, they don't get rubber stamped, and there can be a 'party of NO' to take the people's side and stand up to it.
"but at least once it's stricken down then single-payer becomes the only reform option left."
There are plenty of other reform solutions which don't involve single payer's lurch in the direction toward fascism. Such as the proposals to take down the barriers that prevent insurers from competing across state lines. Or proposals to stop the frivolous lawsuit problem which makes healthcare costs soar. (Europe strictly limits frivolous lawsuits: one of their great ideas, and it helps keep costs down).
We need many more payers, not fewer.
The Occupy movement has the right idea on this when it comes to banks. Remember how they have pushed for people to take money out of the big banks and put it in credit unions instead. This is exactly what we need in health care: a trend toward decentralization, localization, many many payers instead of a single one. Instead of a the central unaccountable "one size fits just a few" no-options option.
---------------- On the first comment. You said: "The profit model for healthcare just doesn't work."
How about a reform that requires insurance companies to be non-profit? There. The profit problem is gone. Without creating another self-serving government monopoly.
One potentially good thing is that if the Supreme Court strikes down health reform it puts us back on an eventual path to single payer. 'Obamacare' was basically the last best chance to save our existing for-profit system as it is, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteThe profit model for healthcare just doesn't work. The system isn't designed to make people healthy, it's designed to make profits for insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Making people healthy is a very poor business model: No repeat business.
This is how you get a system that is the most expensive in the world, without the population getting any healthier than the other systems.
The whole reason single-payer wasn't a part of health reform discussion was because Obama wanted some GOP support. He figured if he used their idea instead (the insurance mandate) they'd go for it. Of course, the assumption that the 'Party of NO' would back even its own ideas turned out to be shatteringly wrong, but at least once it's stricken down then single-payer becomes the only reform option left.
ReplyDeleteSingle-payer, which is simply Stalinization of healthcare (turning control over to an unaccountable monopoly, won't fly. A small minority supports it.
DeleteI'm glad that when the government proposes very bad ideas, they don't get rubber stamped, and there can be a 'party of NO' to take the people's side and stand up to it.
"but at least once it's stricken down then single-payer becomes the only reform option left."
There are plenty of other reform solutions which don't involve single payer's lurch in the direction toward fascism. Such as the proposals to take down the barriers that prevent insurers from competing across state lines. Or proposals to stop the frivolous lawsuit problem which makes healthcare costs soar. (Europe strictly limits frivolous lawsuits: one of their great ideas, and it helps keep costs down).
We need many more payers, not fewer.
The Occupy movement has the right idea on this when it comes to banks. Remember how they have pushed for people to take money out of the big banks and put it in credit unions instead. This is exactly what we need in health care: a trend toward decentralization, localization, many many payers instead of a single one. Instead of a the central unaccountable "one size fits just a few" no-options option.
----------------
On the first comment. You said: "The profit model for healthcare just doesn't work."
How about a reform that requires insurance companies to be non-profit? There. The profit problem is gone. Without creating another self-serving government monopoly.