I don't doubt there are cost savings along the lines identified in the article. But, just to restate our disagreement on this one, I think the first priority about health insurance is getting it to the uninsured.
Terrific program on 60 minutes last night in that regard. An elderly doctor who organized health care task forces for poor countries, now devotes at least 60% of his resources to the US. Really heart breaking stuff. Folk with cancer operations who had little or no follow up because of lack of money; innumerable bad teeth, heart procedures, eye problems, and so on, all because of lack of health insurance.
I still buy the argument that there are lots of room to cut costs if the insurance process is simplified. Single payer system. The staff at my local doctor's office--a six doctor office--would be dramatically cut. Magnify that savings across the board and it's a lot.
But, having said that, I'm in the same quandary as the quote you gave.
This research “suggests that about 20 percent of Medicare spending could be eliminated with no adverse effects on health,” said Prof. David M. Cutler of Harvard, an adviser to the Obama campaign. Identifying that 20 percent would be “very difficult,” he acknowledged.
In the case of my argument, identifying the problem is not difficult; getting the political will to transition to a single payer system is well beyond daunting. But it helps to keep the concept in play as a benchmark, if nothing else. |
