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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4318)	2/5/2008 7:48:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Pricing power 05 Feb 2008 02:43 pm I'm impressed by the fact that the response so far to my post on cost overruns in the Massachusetts health care program has so far been met by . . . changing the subject. "Well, what are you planning to do to cover the uninsured?!" or "Private health care costs have grown even faster than public costs!" These are spectacularly irrelevant to the question of whether covering the uninsured will cost much, much more than estimates. Every major health care program we've put in place has cost much more than promised. This, presumably, matters. The first step to assessing the costs and benefits of something is, well, knowing the costs. Obviously, the budgetary cost is only one cost, but it is a component of the larger pricetag we should hang on any national health care program. It is therefore important to know what that actual cost will be. The answer appears to be "Vastly higher than whatever its advocates are promising." When you respond to this point by saying "But look at all the benefits!" the message you are sending is "I like this program, and I don't care whether the numbers used to sell it are wildly inaccurate." That's not exactly a stunning rebuttal of my point. meganmcardle.theatlantic.com Kim wrote: "Health care is expensive because cost management is just a game where insurance companies, hospitals and doctors (three players to be simple) try to pass cost onto the other players." This analysis is a bit less than just simple. The "cost management" you speak of is due, in no small part, to crippling government regulations intertwined throughout the entire industry like ivy, severely limiting the ways in which healthcare may be offered and paid for. Healthcare isn't going to cheaper, better, or more widely available under "universal care" without the same kinds of widespread reforms that would also fix many of the weak points in the current system. You just won't have a clue what you're actually paying for or how much it costs because it will be obscured behind another layer of 100,000 civil servants and 50 million square feet of new office space at various IRS and Medicaid/Medicare administrative facilities. Posted by anony-mouse \| February 5, 2008 3:36 PM meganmcardle.theatlantic.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4318)	2/5/2008 8:16:29 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I don't think the rate of illness necessarily tripled, it could be a case of much more expensive healthcare, advanced drugs, and testing coupled with more and more folks being uninsured/underinsured. Regards, John

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4318)	3/5/2008 1:17:46 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Dying to save 'The System' Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, February 18, 2008 For defenders of Canada's government-monopoly health care system, there is only one goal that truly matters. And, no, despite their earnest insistences to the contrary, that goal is not the health of patients. It is the preservation of the public monopoly at all costs, even patients' lives. This week, the Kawacatoose First Nation, which has an urban reserve on Regina's eastern outskirts, announced it wanted to build a health centre there with its own money. Among other things, the band wants to buy a state-of-the-art MRI machine and perform diagnostic tests on Saskatchewanians -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal-- who currently face some of the longest waits for scans in the country. This should be a win-win: Aboriginals show entrepreneurial initiative, without any financial obligation on the part of the federal or provincial government, and create well-paying high-tech jobs for natives who desperately need them, while at the same time easing the wait for MRI tests in Saskatchewan that can now run to six or even 12 months. Each year, hundreds or even thousands of Saskatchewan residents -- mostly middle-class -- drive across the border into North Dakota and pay their own money for scans rather than wait for one at home. The Kawacatoose proposal would give them a much closer alternative. So what was the reaction of the opposition NDP in Saskatchewan? Restrained contempt and veiled fear-mongering. The restraint was a result only of the fact that this proposal was coming from aboriginals. Had a private, non-native company suggested the same thing, Saskatchewan's opposition socialists would have been screaming from the rooftops that greedy insurance companies and health profiteers are lurking under every hospital bed ready to prey on unsuspecting patients the moment they get the green light. Still, despite their untypical decorum, it was easy to see the NDP's disdain. Health critic Judy Junor said such private facilities threaten the public system, even if they do not offer fee-for-service scans, because they poach staff from public hospitals. "You can buy the machine," she sniffed, "that's the easy part. It's who's going to work it on a day-to-day basis." The Kawacatoose have said they will not permit queue-jumping by fee-paying patients at their clinic. Instead, they have the money to buy an MRI, and they estimate their band could make some much-needed money by performing scans paid for by the province, so they are seeking permission to go ahead. Still, that is not good enough for Ms. Junor and her colleagues. The NDP sees any service provision not controlled directly by the government as a menace That means health cannot be as high a priority for them as preserving the public monopoly. During their 16 years in power -- a string that ended just over three months ago -- the Saskatchewan NDP refused to issue licenses for any MRI clinics not owned by government. In 2004, the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation proposed building one on its satellite reserve in Saskatoon. After three frustratingly long years seeking approval, the band gave up and went ahead with plans for an MRI-less clinic. Their members and the public will have to settle for second-best care because of the devotion of medicare's defenders to "the system," first and foremost. By placing "the system" (and the well-paying jobs of NDP-voting union health workers) ahead of providing care for patients, the NDP have shown where their true loyalties lie. It's the same across the country, and not just among New Democrats. We are short 12,000 to 15,000 doctors in Canada because in the early 1990s, provincial health ministers -- Tory, Liberal and NDP -- desirous of preserving "the system," capped enrolments at medical schools. Doctors, they reasoned, are a major driver of costs with all the tests they order and treatments they perform. The ministers knew that limiting the number of doctors would limit the amount of medical service available to patients. But they were prepared to accept that. They felt they had to limit costs to preserve "the system," so providing care Canadians needed came in second to the system's survival. The nursing shortage, the sad state of high-tech diagnostic equipment outside our largest cities and the rationing of services via waiting lists are all examples of how medicare's advocates are prepared to sacrifice Canadians' health and comfort -- even their lives -- just so the public monopoly can be maintained. lgunter@shaw.ca Close nationalpost.com