Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 24, 2010 12:35:46 GMT -8
James Capretta has written a good piece outlining the essential questions that need asking when discussing health care in the U.S.
I hope you will read all Capretta's article. Here are some of the most important portions of the piece.
Proponents of a governmental process have an unbounded confidence in the ability of the federal government to centrally plan and control an extremely complex sector of the American economy. But there is nearly a half century of experience with the Medicare program indicating that this confidence is entirely misplaced.
*********************************************************************************8
. . .they (i.e., politicians) prefer to hit spending targets with across-the-board payment-rate reductions which treat all licensed providers equally. Every hospital, doctor, and other service provider gets cut the same, without regard to any measure of how well or badly they treat patients. That's been the history of the Medicare program, and, in fact, that's how the current Congress plans to achieve most of the $500 billion in Medicare savings in the health-care bills.
But these kinds of arbitrary price controls are also very dangerous for the quality of American medicine. They drive out willing suppliers of services, after which the only way to balance supply and demand is with waiting lists and rationing of care.
***********************************************************************************88
That's the big danger of the health-care bills being drafted in Congress. They would put the federal government in the cost-control driver's seat, and all experience indicates that will lead, in time, to arbitrary price setting and rationing.
**************************************************************************************
There is an alternative to this kind of governmental process. It involves building a real marketplace, one where cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.
The government can and should play an important oversight role in such a reformed system. But the difficult organizational changes and innovations necessary to provide better care at lower cost would come from those delivering the services, not Congress, or the Department of Health and Human Services, or even an independent commission.
The new Medicare prescription drug benefit was constructed just this way when it was enacted in 2003. Beneficiaries get a fixed dollar entitlement that they can use to buy coverage from a number of different competing plans. The insurers understand that they have to keep costs down to attract price-sensitive enrollees. And the government has no role in setting premiums or drug prices.
And how is it working? Costs have come in forty percent below original expectations.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/24/what_the_health_care_debate_is_really_all_about_100013.html
AzWm
I hope you will read all Capretta's article. Here are some of the most important portions of the piece.
Proponents of a governmental process have an unbounded confidence in the ability of the federal government to centrally plan and control an extremely complex sector of the American economy. But there is nearly a half century of experience with the Medicare program indicating that this confidence is entirely misplaced.
*********************************************************************************8
. . .they (i.e., politicians) prefer to hit spending targets with across-the-board payment-rate reductions which treat all licensed providers equally. Every hospital, doctor, and other service provider gets cut the same, without regard to any measure of how well or badly they treat patients. That's been the history of the Medicare program, and, in fact, that's how the current Congress plans to achieve most of the $500 billion in Medicare savings in the health-care bills.
But these kinds of arbitrary price controls are also very dangerous for the quality of American medicine. They drive out willing suppliers of services, after which the only way to balance supply and demand is with waiting lists and rationing of care.
***********************************************************************************88
That's the big danger of the health-care bills being drafted in Congress. They would put the federal government in the cost-control driver's seat, and all experience indicates that will lead, in time, to arbitrary price setting and rationing.
**************************************************************************************
There is an alternative to this kind of governmental process. It involves building a real marketplace, one where cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.
The government can and should play an important oversight role in such a reformed system. But the difficult organizational changes and innovations necessary to provide better care at lower cost would come from those delivering the services, not Congress, or the Department of Health and Human Services, or even an independent commission.
The new Medicare prescription drug benefit was constructed just this way when it was enacted in 2003. Beneficiaries get a fixed dollar entitlement that they can use to buy coverage from a number of different competing plans. The insurers understand that they have to keep costs down to attract price-sensitive enrollees. And the government has no role in setting premiums or drug prices.
And how is it working? Costs have come in forty percent below original expectations.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/24/what_the_health_care_debate_is_really_all_about_100013.html
AzWm
