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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (301771)	8/30/2006 5:12:56 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572133

Transparency or fig leaf? By Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein Wed Aug 30, 7:33 AM ET Nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, and millions more have coverage so skimpy that a major illness would bankrupt them. Yet President Bush apparently thinks Americans are too well-insured. He's pushing health savings accounts - a plan to make the sick pay thousands from their own pockets before insurance kicks in. And the fig leaf for his soak-the-sick scheme is "transparency." Just make hospitals and doctors post their prices, he says, and the market will magically cut health costs. The president's scheme will drive millions more into medical poverty, but it won't hold down costs. Insured Americans already pay bigger co-payments and deductibles than do people in any other nation. Yet our health costs are far higher than anywhere else. Steep out-of-pocket costs have little impact on overall spending. They discourage preventive care such as immunizations but don't affect the real cost driver - expensive illnesses that afflict only 20% of Americans each year but account for 80% of spending. A patient having a heart attack can't comparison shop among hospitals, bargain for discount clot-buster drugs, or second-guess the doctor's advice. And when steep deductibles make people delay care, the heart damage gets worse and the bill goes up. Huge corporations like General Motors have tried for years to hold down health benefit costs by using their market muscle (and the kind of price and quality information Bush touts). They've failed. If GM can't bargain down costs, will Mrs. Smith succeed? Transparency won't cut costs, but national health insurance would. A single-payer system could save $300 billion annually on health bureaucracy by eliminating paperwork and exorbitant CEO incomes. It could avoid the duplication of transplant facilities that raises costs and worsens quality. It would also reduce unnecessary surgery and other harmful procedures. Most important, national health insurance would guarantee comprehensive coverage and close the health gap with Canada and other nations where people live longer than we do. Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein teach at Harvard Medical School and co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program.