A
National Journal poll shows little support of the proposed changes by Ryan in Medicare.
64% want it to stay as it is with only 26% favoring the plan that would give
seniors a fixed amount of money to purchase private health insurance or to pay
the cost of the remaining current Medicare program. Even Republicans support
the current system 56 for and 30 against.
According
to RealClearPolitics 65 year-olds will be paying 68% of their medicare coverage
costs by 2030 compared to 35% today. Others claim that the GOP bill will cost
average seniors an extra $2,200 per year plus many will have to pay up to
$6,000 extra for medications, because it reopens the infamous drug donut hole.
The issue
here is privatization. Republicans consistently claim that privatization will
save money but it doesn’t. Privatization always includes a profit element and
national programs don’t. Wikipedia states that in 2006 per capita spending for
health care in Canada was $3,678 compared to the USA’s $6,714. The USA spend
15.3% of GDP on health care versus Canada’s 10%. See other country comparisons
below.
The New
England Journal of Medicine concluded as early as 1999 that the gap between
U.S. and Canadian health care administration had grown to $752 per capita.
It is
widely known that our medical system is the most expensive in the world but is
not the best care.
If you
really want to look at a very comprehensive comparison of U.S. health care
spending and care in comparison to other countries I would suggest you take a look at
this link to a study by Cornell University ILR School done in 2007.
As a senior
all this scares the bejeebers out of me.
"Privatization always includes a profit element and national programs don’t."
ReplyDeleteCompetition, though, minimizes the profit element from being excessive.
The national/government-run programs have another problem which is not nearly as present with private companies: the unions, which drive up costs and degrade service by wasting massive sums on overpay, while preventing bad workers from being fired, and also interfering in efficient management (the interference degrading the service considerably).
Anyway, profit CAN be a problem. How about privatizing to non-profit companies, instead of for-profit ones? Doesn't that take care completely of your main objection to privitization?
I'd agree, non-profits are more efficient in terms of how they spend their income. I cashed in
Deletewhen Prudential went public because of my perception that shareholders would take precedent
over customers. I put my entire 401K into a nonprofit, Thrivent, and have been very pleased.
As far as efficient management, I've had both
union and non-union working for me and a good manager has little trouble with either. A poor manager is simply enabled by the luxury of non-union workers. Abusiveness leading to constant turnover is quite common, costs $$$ and is indicative of a poorly run company. Managing scientists and engineers is, on the other hand, like herding cats....
I always appreciate your input. This was particularly informative. I appreciate your analogy of managing scientists and engineers to herding cats. As one who has manged volunteers who thought they were my boss over the years, I have empathy.
Delete