| « Previous | Main | Next » |
Shawn Tully advises the readers of Fortune Magazine that John McCain’s health care plan is better than the alternatives offered by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:
For all its problems, at least it puts the consumer in charge … It will create a world where health care is treated as the precious resource that it is, rather than a costless entitlement; where nationwide competition pushes down the price of catastrophic care and consumers focus their attention and budgets on what’s really crucial to their health.
And what do the Democrat presidential candidates offer?
The Democrat plan exacerbates the fundamental problem in the American health-care system, which is that no one has any incentive to care about price. Creating a huge new medical superstructure would shift far more spending to third-party providers … giving consumers even less incentive to concern themselves with the price of an MRI …
Tully closes with a statement of fact that should be blindingly obvious to any economically literate observer.
The price of health care is never going to get under control until patients get what they deserve: the right to be customers too.
McCain’s health care plan makes it clear that he understands this. It is not by any means perfect, but it is vastly superior to the alternative.
March 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Our private insurers have been doing a great job of insuring the individual and offering the variety that the U.S. citizen may wish to have. Part of the problem is that U.S. citizen isn’t educated enough re: what they have or may choose, but the insurer has to maintain profits in order to pay claims, yet they need to be competitive in order to get “your” business. This resource is much too valuable for our ignorant, inexperienced gov’t employees or new “program” to take over. We have 300 million citizens, not 30 like Canada (and they still have many problems after having this program how many decades?) Those are real numbers, not 49 mill uninsured, which is a distortion of numbers, not truly the amount of U.S. citizens “can’t afford insurance”. “Can’t afford health insurance” is not a statement based in facts or real truths. With my present funds “I can’t afford a new car”, yet there is an identical person out there that “can afford a new car”. Fact, I don’t want to go further into debt that I feel comfortable with, and to me paying for insurance is the most responsible (auto insurance also) thing I need to do. The person with new car, may be in debt to where they can’t make their credit card payments, but feel they can afford the new car and aren’t concerned about paying a medical bill! We have come to use phrases of opinion as statements of fact… they are not. Be careful when we listen to politicians and advertisers. Listen for real facts and oftentimes numbers can be manipulated to say what ever they want them to say. Even “adult” some use over 18, some use over 21, some even use over 25. This can certainly change the numbers when the word adult or youth is under as a category.!
March 12th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Let’s really listen to each word and each statistic. Be smart and demand the excellence that the U.S. citizen has fought so hard for, we need to have choices, and our capitalistic society has made us great. Our present government involvement has hurt us enough by taking over control. There isn’t a single program that government has taken over that works correctly and efficiently. Not a single program. It’s not their money they are handling, being financially efficient is not a goal, never has been, and he waste continues to grow. Us, lower/middle class taxpayers can no longer afford this waste - much less allow it to increase with gov’t health care - Do we really believe they can lower the cost of care without the taxpayer paying a high price for it? NOOO
March 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’m so sorry Anne, but saying government not for profit healthcare wouldn’t reduce cost’s, is simply wrong. The proof is everywhere you look, all over the world healthcare is done more cheaply and better by what you would probably call “socialized medicine”. And along with those cheap cost’s, better healthcare is provided as well. Those people in countries with single payer actually live longer than Americans! For profit healthcare actually makes money, by NOT providing healthcare, the less they provide, the more profit is realized. And there, lies the heart of the problem. Cherry picking the healthy from the group, is another way American for profit healthcare increases their profit, as you would expect them to do. If one is unlucky enough to have some “pre-existing” condition, for profit healthcare, either will not help you, or will price you out of the market. That is normal in the market place, but healthcare, should be for all of us, espeicially for the sick don’t you think? America, is spending 17% of it’s GDP on healthcare right now, no other country is spending more than 11% of Gdp for even more comprehensive care. They cover everyone, the American “system” of for profit covers about 83%. This is simply a no-brainer, at some point, common sense logic will have to be recognized, and single payer will have to be implemented.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“America, is spending 17% of itâs GDP on healthcare right now, no other country is spending more than 11% of Gdp for even more comprehensive care”
Maybe that’s because we actually treat our sick, especially the most expensive demographic, the elderly. Many of these single payer countries have “lower” priced care because they don’t treat, or ration care for some of their sickest patients. It’s pretty easy to save money on care when you refuse to spend money and deliver the care needed, lol.
Also, isn’t the French system, supposedly the best, on the verge of bankruptcy? I’m guessing a tax increase is on the way soon, which is pretty ironic. Since we hear that so many people in the U.S. can’t afford to buy health insurance, how will they be able to pay for it by buying the health insurance by proxy through their taxes?
As for life expectancy, what the hell does that have to do with the quality of health care? I see you’ve been reading too many UN reports.
Lastly, for-profit health care operations do not make money by not providing health care. If they did, hospitals and doctors would never treat anyone.
The American system isn’t perfect, and no one says it is. But it beats the socialist model hands down now, and, with a few intelligent changes, it could be made even better.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Funny Kevin you should mention bankruptcy. Do you know that half of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are from healthcare bills? As for taking care of the elderly, in those with Socialized care, end of life “homes” are part of the treatment. Here, many Mom’s and Pop’s lose their little fortunes to those high cost nursing homes that are provided in other countries. Sad that you think life span doesn’t reflect on the healthcare system. Logically, that is the ultimate measure of a healthcare system isn’t it? As for this system making more by limiting care, have you ever had to beg for a procedure from your provider? It happens every day. It is simply the nature of the beast, the less the healthcare company can spend on care, the more profit is made. Elementary actually. Why you would think spending 17% and only getting 83% coverage is wonderful escapes me. A socialist system, would cover everyone, and save us some 1/2 Trillion dollars a year.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Mr. Horter,
Where do you get your data from? I’m especially interested in how a socialist system can “save us some 1/2 trillion dollars a year.” Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
From this video, one would assume covering even more people in a socialist type health care system would speed up our impending doom.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Alan B.,Most other developed countries in the world, use what some call Socialist Healthcare. Or single payer, non profit type. What your video is saying is, if we continue to try and use this for profit system, costs are going to escalate further. I got the 17% of GDP figure from C=Span, a guy named Mike Leavitt, HHS Sec. for Bush, and he should know. I have also seen it in various papers written on the Internet. 33 cents, of every healthcare dollar in our for profit system, goes toward “administrative costs”. That figure in Medicare, is less than 4%, and similar cost’s are found in other single payer systems. The highest GDP figure I know of is France and Swiss 11%, maybe Canada spends that much to, I don’t remember it all but I have it marked down somewhere. But if you do a little math, and figure from 2.2 trillion at 17%, and figure 11% you can see the 1/2 trillion plainly. These figures aren’t easy to come by, but are out there if one is persistent. Also remember, those single payer systems are covering everyone! Our “for profit” system, only covers 83% or so, and of the rest, another high percentage has very poor coverage. The U.S. system has hundreds of companies selling healthcare. Each of those companies have their own bureaucracies, CEO’s Vice Presidents etc. Costs are way higher! One CEO in 2005 I think was the year, took home some 1.6 BILLION dollars!Bill McQuire was his name, you can Google it. Our Doctors have to have a staff to sort out the different companies, the different policies etc. Each company sells many different policies, thus adding to the nightmare. All this cost, and in our system, half of all U.S. bankrupcies are caused by healthcare bills! That doesn’t happen anywhere else but here.