tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258423.post6707285383397546920..comments2023-10-16T03:04:54.726-07:00Comments on Impractical Proposals: Health Care Reform: Failure of "public option" might open the door for single-payerJohn Gabreehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04727341692412271245noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258423.post-71542349055510723132009-07-30T12:26:30.119-07:002009-07-30T12:26:30.119-07:00I think your first idea is interesting. A medical...I think your first idea is interesting. A medical doctor writing in the New Yorker (June 1, 2009) contrasted medical care in McAllen, Texas, one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country, with the area around Rochester, Minnesota, one of the places were health-care costs are relatively under control. Both areas are similarly well-supplied with services and technology, but in Rochester, where the Mayo Clinic is dominant, medical care is largely collegial, and many of the doctors hold staff positions, while McCallum is highly competitive, and the doctors own -- and profit from -- the facilities they utilize and prescribe. The actions of the insurance companies in attempting to maintain profits by rationing care demonstrates that profit and health care may be incompatible. At the least, medical personnel shouldn't be allowed to invest in medical facilities, equipment, drug companies, etc. See,http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/ for support of your position.<br /><br />As far as your second point, I'm all for controlling the rates of insurance providers, but imposing a regulatory overhead on top of the insurance industry's overhead isn't going to do much to lower the cost of health care. On the other hand, if you eliminate the insurance companies altogether by establishing a single-payer system, you lower health care costs by nearly third in one fell swoop.<br /><br />I wouldn't oppose expanding funding for state programs, but only if the states are required to provide their residents with equivalent levels of care. Wouldn't funding have to be pretty high to assure that health care wasn't dependent on the vagaries of state budgets? (Also, did something drop out of your post: "and not allow doctors and hospitals" to what?).<br /><br />Single-payer doesn't have to be started from scratch: we already have Medicare, a single-payer system.<br /><br />Sorry about the crack about Republicans. It was really aimed at the BlueDogs, anyway.John Gabreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04727341692412271245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258423.post-42970656949410725392009-07-30T11:31:37.876-07:002009-07-30T11:31:37.876-07:00I'm a republican (ok, ok call me stupid and le...I'm a republican (ok, ok call me stupid and let's move on). Single payer systems work great in other countries, where the population is not as great as it is in the U.S.; no argument there. So, as alternative to single-payer, I propose: <br /><br />(1) Outlawing for-profit healthcare operations: every healthcare provider should be non-profit.<br /><br />(2) All doctors should accept all insurance, whether state funded or private non-profit and there should be flat rates.<br /><br />(3) To address the uninsured in this country, let's increase funding for the state-funded insurance programs and not allow doctors and hospitals. This would increase taxes (remember, I'm a Repub), but I think it would be cheaper than instituting a single-payer system. Like the President has been saying, it's much harder to start from scratch.<br /><br />I anxious to have people shoot holes in my ideas, so fire away!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com