Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15249)	3/27/2006 12:32:35 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542019

Oh, I see you want to see the simple form. Didn't think we needed to get that simple. As I said in my previous post, I gather you disagree with the frame in the Times piece, that other programs are being cut because of the lack of funding for the NCLB program. Would you please offer some evidence for the counter argument, that one that says there are no "losses." That there is no cause and effect, to use your language.

To: Lane3 who wrote (15249)	3/27/2006 12:33:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542019

Something for me to ponder while I splash around in lane 3... Healthcare, Part IV So here are the things I care about, when I think about healthcare: * I don't want poor people to die because they can't afford healthcare. Luckily, I don't think that happens very much; the poor get much better health care than most people think, and many of the barriers they face are not inherent to the health care system, but have to do with things like transportation and trouble getting time off work. But that doesn't mean I think that the poor get adequate health care. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I don't want poor Americans to suffer without basic treatment. It's all very well to say that this is the operation of the free market, but I triple dog dare you to go tell some old woman who is crippled by a disease she can't afford to treat that you think she needs to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team. * I don't want the government to kill off the incentive to invent life-saving, or life-improving, new treatments. I care about this even more than I care about the uninsured, because new treatments will save a lot more lives than covering the relatively small number of uninsured1. The patent life of a drug once it hits the market is only about ten years, after which point it is as cheap as it would be in any other country. It's one thing to demand that the uninsured forgo treatment; it's quite another to demand that they be content with slightly outdated drugs (many of which, outraged single-payer advocates keep assuring me, are every bit as good as the newer drugs). * I want there to be a genuine market in health care services. As I said in my previous post, I don't think that this will significantly reduce costs, but I do think that it could improve quality. The current system of cross-subsidies, third payers and so forth inevitably destroys value. * I want people to pay for their own health care, to the extent that they can. There is no reason that healthy young mailroom clerks should subsidize hypertensive middle managers, or poor young students contribute to the health care consumption of affluent senior citizens. * I want health care to be separated from employment. The current system stifles innovation and labour mobility, by tying people to hated jobs when they could be seeking new opportunities. All that's very nice . . . but how do we bell the cat? Here is my suggestion. It is simple and elegant enough to be explained in a single sentence, yet powerful enough to meet all the criteria above: Have the government pay for all health care expenditures above 15% of adjusted gross income, and cover 100% of health care expenditures by people living under 200% of the poverty line. This preserves the market in most health care services--happy HSA advocates! It is progressive, and provides universal coverage--happy single-payer advocates! It directs coverage to those who really need it--the very sick--without a middle class subsidy--happy Jane! And it preserves market prices for almost everything from hospital beds to surgical procedures, since a significant fraction of the market will be paying their own way. That keeps the government from having to set prices, which as Soviet Russia showed us, is generally a bad idea. Most importantly (from my perspective) it preserves the market for innovations in drugs and medical equipment. It is certainly not perfect. For one thing, I make no promises that it will control costs; I only allege that it will improve quality. But you know what? We're rich. We're really, really rich. We're the richest country in the entire history of the world. We're so rich that we have stores full of nothing but beautifully sculpted plumbing. What do we want to spend our money on that's better than health care? Posted by Jane Galt