Perhaps no other health issue is as important to so many Americans now and in the future as Medicare. In this new series, “Covering Medicare,” we will follow the reportage and offer Medicare beat memos from time to time.
NPR’s All Things Considered came forth over the weekend with a piece on Medicare. That’s not a bad choice of subjects, considering that Medicare and Paul Ryan’s proposal are the health care topics at the moment. The problem is that the story relied on a predictable anecdote (okay, I guess), and was built around the position of a single source representing one side of a very touchy issue (not okay).
The anecdote, which appeared a bit contrived, offered up quotes from three Medicare beneficiaries, and all of them, as if on cue, talked about benefits they earned because they had paid taxes into the system. A man said he “paid taxes all my life.” A woman who had cancer said: “I was taken care of. I’ve always paid my taxes.” Another said she used to tell her employees who didn’t like paying Medicare taxes: “That’s your prepaid medical care for when you are a senior citizen.” These quotes seemed to set the direction that weekend host Guy Raz wanted to go. There’s a reason the current system is unsustainable, said Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute in Washington. It’s because an average couple retiring today paid in a bit more than $100,000 in Medicare taxes and gets back “about $300,000 in benefits,” even after adjusting for inflation.
“How did the current system become so unbalanced?” Raz asked. Steuerle replied that it has to do with how Medicare was built—that it passed along an individual retiree’s health care costs to a wide pool of current taxpayers. Specifically, he said:
The incentive for me as a consumer to worry about the cost isn’t very high. But the incentive for providers have this incentive to keep listing as many services as possible. The more services the hospital can list, the more they can collect.”
Steuerle went on with his message, and Raz offered no background or context, allowing the show to convey that Steuerle had all the answers. He argued that the system worked well until health costs really zoomed up. Steuerle told NPR that no one is in charge of saying “no” to medical-cost inflation, leaving the impression that no one has tried. Raz shortchanged NPR listeners by failing to challenge his guest.
A bit of history is in order here. The fee-for-service/pass-along system was part of Medicare from the get-go, and doctors and hospitals fully exploited it. The costs of the program began rising quickly. By the time Ronald Reagan came to the White House, costs were so out of line that Medicare changed the way hospitals were paid. Still costs rose.
Through the years Medicare has tried to say “no” to providers seeking reimbursement for this treatment or that—often new ones for which there is little or no evidence for their effectiveness. A few years back, Julie Appleby, now with Kaiser Health News, wrote in Health Affairs the best account of how pressure from medical sellers results in higher costs for Medicare. Her description of the sales job for CT angiography should be required reading for any reporter interested in accurately covering Medicare. And earlier this year the Center for Public Integrity showed how clever marketing, public relations, and campaign contributions from manufacturers of imaging machines succeeded in getting Medicare to pay for digital mammograms for older women, even though the scientific evidence suggests that digital mammography does not improve detection of breast cancer in this age group. Every time Congress has tried to cut doctors’ fees in accordance with a 1997 law, the docs have mounted a press initiative and a political campaign to get a reprieve.

"The other relies on the experiences of other industrial democracies, which use the countervailing power of government to restrain inflation.."
TRANSLATION: "Use the power of government to ration health care services, reduce professional compensation, limit capital investment in facilities and institutions, cut back research and development spending on health care products and services, and borrow the money to pay for it all"..
Yeah... For once I agree with Trudy... The effect of this "countervailing power" does indeed need to be presented in all of its glorious detail...
For starters, Trudy... How about a little write-up on the near doubling of waiting times for medical care in the People's Republic of Massachusetts since Romneycare came to be? I can't wait to read it!
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 4 May 2011 at 03:27 PM
I've been a resident of Massachusetts for 20 years, and have noticed NO increase in waiting times for medical care. Nor do I know of anyone who has EVER complained about an increase in waiting times for medical care since Romneys health care law went into effect.
"Long waits' is a red herring. As is "rationing". These amount to scare tactics usually used by those who want to preserve the unsustainable health care status quo.
#2 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 10:34 AM
"In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/doc_holiday_Nyb5JCHkWyejLq7dTjTs2J/1
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 10:50 AM
I haven't seen the long wait times that your link suggests, and have had no problems getting appointments, including same day appointments when required.
I don't doubt that wait times are increasing - they are increasing across the country. And I don't doubt that doctors shortages relative to the number of patients are part of the cause. But it is not the 'killer' problem that your comments would suggest. How much of the wait increase in Massachusetts can be directly attributed to Romney's health care program is open to debate; but it certainly doesn't explain the increased wait times around the country.
If your point is "we should increase patient access to health care by increasing the number of doctors and other health care providers", then I agree. If your point is "universal health care (ala Massachusetts) is bad because it increases the number of patients", then in my opinion,
you are way off base.
#4 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 12:17 PM
The only thing that makes things better is a properly regulated free enterprise system that rewards and fosters performance and innovation.
You can cut down on doctor compensation (like Canada does) and end up with a situation like Canada has where its doctors are leaving practice in droves and its medical students flock off to practice elsewhere for market-based compensation. Then you end up with 100-day waits for MRI's and a host of well document problems that send patients who can afford good medical care to the U.S. (like the Premier of Quebec and a prominent Liberal M.P.)
You can throttle and ration health care like England does, and end up with National Health patients dying of thirst in hospitals and myriad similar such examples of shitty care.
You can do what France does, and maintain a decent level of care for most people by denying coverage to immigrants (more than 10% of the population) and by subsidizing medical education completely with taxpayer funds (a lot easier to do when the U.S. pays for your defense).
It's not always true that "you get what you pay for"... But it's certainly true that "you pay for what you get"..
The commie thing just doesn't work. Nice idea, but we've been there and done that in all four hemispheres and it does nothing but dole out mostly equal shares of misery.
The best that socialized medicine can do is to guarantee that most people will receive generally adequate care. The people who don't get adequate care are collateral damage- statistical fodder - pawns sacrificed for the Common Good. This plays well in Cuba. In England. In France. But as anyone who actually reads the polls can see, Americans just aren't buying it. We want GOOD health care for those who can pay for it, and want adequate health care for those who can't (or won't) pay for it. We want choice. Freedom.
And that's pretty much what we have. If you have a ton of money, and if you choose to spend it, you can get the best treatment in the world. If you are a penniless bum who collapses on the street, you are taken in a half-million dollar ambulance to a multi-million dollar hospital and stabilized at no cost. If you're poor and have kids, Medicaid pays all of your medical expenses.
The only way to foster the innovation and capital investment required to make new drugs, build new hospitals and finance our health care system is to not only "allow" or "tolerate", but to actually encourage people to make money by doing it well.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 01:44 PM
Aha. Big picture still fuzzy but becoming more clear. The Amazon reviews have good, quick and brief summaries about the Marmor book: http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Medicare-Second-Social-Institutions/dp/0202304256
It still doesn't make sense to me about the point when Medicare says 'talk to the hand' and stops paying out, if or when costs exceed revenues. Meaning, do payroll taxes fund the program each year? If not, then bills are paid anyway? If so, then bills get paid out of general funds (or something), like overdraft protection on a checking account? One reason I ask is because the Doc Fix drama seems to happen a lot, plays out in the background like white noise, something happens, people pipe down, then we don't hear about it for awhile. So it's like a cycle of cry poor house, panic, then much ado about nothing, except for a steady drum beat about imminent collapse. And somewhere in there money stops, or money doesn't stop, and I'm not sure if it matters or not if we should bother to follow that bouncing ball.
I'm also wondering about evidence-based medicine, which I believe is intended to support good decision making for better, more effective treatment. Meaning, evidence-based medicine is promoted for the purpose of guiding better clinical decision making, but the principles of evidence-based medicine are not applied to methods for financing or designing the American health care system (?).
The reason I ask is because Marmor's comment says it well, "...these analysts act like marketers imagining that saying so will make it so. But that isn’t so, as the experience of other countries illustrate."
Both the Public Option and Ryan's voucher plan are methods that have not been tried successfully in other countries? That's my impression, that all these proposals can sound good but they may or may not work. Same with ACA. So Americans are expected to try them out and see what happens. It's almost as if we're being asked to be guinea pigs, even though there is huge body of evidence about what really works but we're not allowed to talk about it. I mean, we are talking about it. But we don't talk about the health care delivery system (including financing it), the way we would talk about drug delivery devices, which are expected to be tested for safety before use on the general population.
It seems like our health care reform efforts are like architecture that sounded good, looked good, but after a decade or so, turns out to not be so. Then back to the drawing board, like with Phila's Kimmel Center, a big building which was built to great fanfare but now needs a re-do (http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-29/news/29487756_1_anne-ewers-verizon-hall-master-plan). Only with health care, it's about life and death. So it seems that the evidence from other countries should be very important when we're trying to solve these problems, but for some reason it's not.
#6 Posted by MB, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 03:14 PM
Mr Padikiller, let me pick one of your points to comment on:
"We [Americans] want GOOD health care for those who can pay
for it, and want adequate health care for those who can't
(or won't) pay for it. We want choice. Freedom. And that's
pretty much what we have."
That's just the point - large segments of the population
DO NOT have adequate care. Even if they can afford
insurance policies, they are denied coverage (a form
of rationing) for preexisting conditions; and this
frequently happens even after they've paid for the
insurance. This hardly qualifies as adequate care.
Those who can't or won't pay for health insurance
receive emergency room treatments at
the expense of those of us who have health insurance
and pay the premiums. This drives up costs for those of
us who do pay for health insurance.
Which brings me to the ticking time bomb: with health care
costs doubling every seven years or so, the status quo
is simply unsustainable. Whether it's government funded
insurance, or private free market insurance - we will
go bankrupt if we can't get the costs under control.
So "what we have" is not working.
#7 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Thu 5 May 2011 at 04:49 PM
rick wrote: That's just the point - large segments of the population DO NOT have adequate care. Even if they can afford insurance policies, they are denied coverage (a form of rationing) for preexisting conditions; and this frequently happens even after they've paid for the insurance. This hardly qualifies as adequate care.
padikiller: You are conflating health care with health insurance.
Nobody is denied basic health care in this country because of an inability to pay - indeed federal law mandates treatment of those who can't pay.
Of course costs are driven up by those who don't pay - just as grocery costs are driven up by shoplifters. And yes, there has been inflation in health care - and there should be - health care development is expensive and Americans currently spend less on medical care on average than they spend on entertainment and alcohol.
The system is indeed working - The health care "crisis" is nonexistent - a liberal myth foisted upon the populace as a justification for the government takeover of the health care industry. Trouble is... The populace isn't buying it, as poll after poll makes clear...
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 6 May 2011 at 07:22 AM
One must note Trudy's selective intolerance of single sourcing...
When it came to her first attack on high-deductible health insurance plans, she lauded the story of a man who had a little trouble getting his insurance company to pay a bill. No mention of the insurance company's side of the story - no comments from any experts - no background regarding the premiums the man paid or the terms of his plan...
Nothing but his side of the story...
And according to Trudy, this was terrific reporting.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 6 May 2011 at 07:35 AM
Padikiller - No, not confusing insurance with care. Some insured
people fail to receive adequate care, due to preexisting conditions.
Many more fail to receive coverage for the same reason. And without
coverage (or a ton of money), you cannot receive adequate care.
Despite your claims to the contrary, emergency room treatments
alone do not provide adequate (or even basic) care. I've heard this
argument often from the right; the argument is wrong.
First, emergency rooms are only required to 'stabilize' a patient
in an emergency situation. No more. They don't do any type of
preventative or maintenance medicine; they don't treat chronic
conditions that are not immediately life threatening; and they
don't do diagnosis, unless it is an emergency. Physical exams
are not done by emergency rooms; dialysis, prenatal care, cancer
treatments, vaccinations, screenings, the list goes on. There
isn't much of a case to be made that emergency rooms provide
'adequate' or 'basic' health care.
Second, emergency rooms are not free. Patients are legally obligated
to pay for all services rendered there. It's true that they have to
accept all comers; but it is also true that you have to pay.
If you think "the system is indeed working", and the crisis
is a "liberal myth", then you've been watching too much
Glenn Beck.
#10 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Fri 6 May 2011 at 10:20 AM
Rick, it is not true that "you have to pay" for medical care.
True, you get billed, but this doesn't mean that the bills get paid.
Billions of dollars in medical costs are absorbed by providers (and ultimately passed on to those who do pay their bills) through bankruptcy discharges, charitable programs, write-offs and otherwise uncollectible debt.
As for the quality of care given to the poor.... In addition to the guarantee of emergency treatment, there are literally dozens of programs to ensure that poor people get very good health care. Medicaid pays for everything. Free clinics provide preventive and routine services. State programs provide free and discounted health services (and often insurance, too). The simple truth is that most poor people don't use preventive care, even when it's provided at no cost to them. They don't get physicals. They don't get prenatal care. They don't do the "wellness" thing,
But given all this, yes.. The more you pay, the better care you get in a free market system.
Tossing the government into the equation won't solve any of the problems you identify, Doling money out of the treasury will only increase the burden on those who pay for treatment of others and won't make health care better for anyone.
Finally, there is no health care "crisis". Period. You don't trip over dead bodies on the way into the hospital. The biggest health problem of our poorest population is obesity. Substance abuse is a close second. Americans spend less on health care than they do on entertainment and alcohol. There are hundreds of affordable private health insurance plans - Sam's club sells them, for Pete's sake. The purported "crisis" is nothing but a liberal crack dream.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 7 May 2011 at 08:12 AM
Rick, I just finished calling my primary care doctor in suburban Boston and was told his next available slot is in December. All of my friends in Mass complain about the increasing wait times. Seeing someone the same day is hardly the norm.
#12 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 7 May 2011 at 02:57 PM
The liberals insist that America is teeming with destitutes denied health care by the evil insurance companies - and the answer is to insert the government into the equation further..
Now nevermind (for the sake of argument) that the liberals are just wrong - Americans aren't denied health care - and the average American spends more money on entertainment and alcohol than on health care costs (including insurance premiums).
The fact still remains that all of the evidence shows that government programs don't work - if the goal is making poor people get regular medical care. Medicaid pays for routine doctors visits, "wellness" care, prenatal care, etc.. And the recipients don't participate - they show up in emergency rooms with routine illnesses all the time.
Medicare is even worse - billions upon billions of dollars lost to fraud and abuse (more money than the combined profits of the "evil" private insurance companies). And really silly policies that result in billions more in crazy inefficiency - for example a local doctor here in town will only cut tonsils at the hospital for Medicare patients.. Why? Because Medicare only gives him a few bucks to do it in his office, but will pay much more if he does the same job in a hospital. Who can blame the doctor?
What the liberals will never acknowledge is that any government program is inherently inefficient and costly. Politics demands policy, and policy demands bureaucracy, and bureaucracy engenders loopholes that will be exploited.
What the liberals really want is the same thing they always want - other people's money. They want the "rich" to pay for the medical care of the "poor". There are only two ways to get this done.
1. Spend more tax money which means either borrowing money, printing money or raising taxes - all sure to kill the economy, or
2. Reducing the quality of health care by cutting costs and rationing services.
Both of these alternatives suck... And the American people know it.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 7 May 2011 at 04:57 PM
Padikiller,
Well, sure, if your definition of crisis is "tripping over
dead bodies on the way to the hospital", then OK - there's
no crisis. But people with views closer to the mainstream
know that: (a) the current rate of health care inflation
is unsustainable, and (b) there is a problem with access to
health care in this country. 15.8 percent of the US population
(and growing) is uninsured. That's a problem. And you can
argue that these people get good basic care, but your
definitions of 'good' and 'basic' are going to be as
extreme as your definition of 'crisis'.
The goals of health care reform are not to "take other peoples"
money (per your outlandish claim), but to (1) increase access
to 'adequate' health care, and (2) decrease overall cost of
delivering health care.
As a country, we've got to figure out how to address these
issues. Pretending they aren't there isn't going to help.
Rick
#14 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Mon 9 May 2011 at 04:30 PM
Rick:
The average American spends more money on entertainment and alcohol than on health care costs (including insurance premiums). This is just the reality - there is no "crisis" in health care costs. I notice you choose to ignore this reality - but the truth isn't going anywhere simply because you won't acknowledge it.
Inflation in the health care sector will be taken care of by market forces - unless the government takes over the industry, in which case you can't imagine how much the cost of health care will increase.
Most of the people who are currently uninsured don't need insurance. They CHOOSE to be uninsured. There is no reason for the average healthy 20 year old single student to have health insurance. Hell, until WWII, NOBODY had health insurance!
There are only two ways to "increase access to health care" (TRANSLATION: Give health care to people who aren't getting it now) while simultaneously decreasing the overall cost of health care .
1. Ration and redistribute services - take services away from some people and give them to others, while limiting the services provided to maintain a budget, or
2. Reduce research spending, overhead, capital investment and professional compensation (TRANSLATION: reduce the quality of services provided)
Both of these options suck!
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 9 May 2011 at 07:52 PM
Padikiller, let me ask you a question. Since you seem to think that the emergency room is such a great health care option for those without health insurance: Why should I pay for the emergency room treatments of those who can't or refuse to buy health insurance, and who don't pay their emergency room bills? These people cause my insurance premiums to go up.
#16 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 01:45 PM
Rick...
You will be paying a WHOLE lot more for these people's care if you get the government involved than you do now by subsidizing health insurance premiums.
What's the goal here?
Is it to give more health care to poor people? Expanding services?If so, then what you are talking about is either:
1. Taking money from the "rich" to give to the "poor" , or
2. Rationing existing services.
The American public wants no part of either of these commie options.
Or is your goal instead encouraging poor people to be more responsible? To get prenatal care... to go to family doctors instead of emergency rooms... to get routine physicals.... to lose weight.... to give up alcohol, tobacco or drugs?...
If this is your goal, then history has shown that the socialist reforms of the "Great Society" have utterly failed... The ONLY way to instill responsibility is to reward people for making good decisions and to punish people for making bad decisions.
If you were a penniless immigrant who fell on the street from a massive heart attack... Where would you rather be? Here? On France, where they turn you out? Cuba, to wait with the cockroaches? England, to stand in the queue?
If you're the Premier of Quebec, and you turn up with cancer... Where do you go for treatment? A hospital in Quebec where your services are "free" (to you, at least)? Or to Maryland?
There IS no health care "crisis" in this country... As you continue to ignore... The simple fact of the matter is that the average American spends more money on entertainment and alcohol than he does on health care!...
PERIOD.
You can't credibly claim the existence of an inflationary "crisis" in the face of this reality, Rick, and that is why you need to dance around it.
But the truth is the truth!
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 04:18 PM
Padikiller:
Well, you didn't answer my question. My opinion is that
the system you describe in which so many choose
not to buy health insurance, but are then happy to use
mandated services like the emergency room at the expense
of responsible people (like me) who pay for insurance
is fundamentally unfair. These people are driving up
insurance premiums for the rest of us, while benefitting
from the care we're paying for. They are basically
mooching off the system.
But, apparently you are ok with that. You're willing
to extend this charity through higher insurance
premiums, rather than requiring these people to buy
their own insurance.
You said: "Inflation in the health care sector will be
taken care of by market forces". But this is not
happening. The market forces that are in play now
are driving UP health care costs at unsustainable rates.
Market forces don't work to optimize health care
quality and costs the same way they work to
optimize (say) consumer products. There are lots
of reasons why that is the case, not the least of
which is you can't shop for health care when you're
sick.
You said: "Most of the people who are currently uninsured
don't need insurance. They CHOOSE to be uninsured."
Where do you get this statistic? I doubt it is true,
unless you have an extreme definition of "need" and
"choice". Sure, 20 year olds don't think they need
insurance, until they're hit by a bus, or succumb to
disease. Then they need health care, and guess who
pays for it? My premiums go up, and so do yours.
And they're forced into bankruptcy.
Rationing is a meaningless term. Everyone with a
health care plan has rationed health care. The
insurance company rations their care; the free
market rations their care. Limited resource require
rationing, it doesn't matter whether it is a government
run system, or a private system. There is and will
be rationing. The only question is who does it.
You said: "There are only two ways to increase
access to health care". But I think you're wrong.
There is a third way - require the people who
are mooching off the system to pay for their
own health insurance. This is essentially what the
Massachusetts plan does. It's not perfect. But
it's better than what we had before. Yes, we need
more doctors (since there are more patients). But
we can work on that.
And there is no reason research spending, capital
investment or innovation should be hampered. The
health care system, regardless of what it is,
will still need drugs, better equipment, better
treatments, etc. And there will be plenty of
money to be made.
#18 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 05:17 PM
Rick:
You aren't going to get any argument from me that people are mooching of the system!..
Indeed the ER's are flooded with people who do so.
However, the people you see in there aren't the ones who will pay for Obamacare... They're the ones already on Medicaid or the ones who will be on Medicaid when Obamacare gives it to them (Obamacare expands Medicaid to cover single adults who earn 33% MORE than the poverty income).
The mooching will only be exacerbated by Obamacare! Taxpayers will pay for more visits to the ER.
The inflation that you see in health care is indeed a normal market force - quality health care costs money - new drugs, new MRI's, new hospitals... MONEY... And we NEED some inflation with an aging population when (as you continue to ignore) the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y is that the average American spends more on entertainment and alcohol than he does on health care!...
You need to ask yourself why it is that you can't address this truth.
Rationing is NOT a "meaningless" term. In the free market, one can choose to be insured, or to pay for services and risk bankruptcy (Donald Trump has been bankrupt twice). If one chooses insurance, then there are hundreds of plans offering all kinds of coverage. Freedom... Choice... Liberty...
On the other hand, rationing at the hands of the government, ultimately at gunpoint, is despotic. An equal helping of misery for all (except the ruling elite, who, like Obama and Congress have done with Obamacare) always manage to exempt themselves from these programs.
You aren't going to make moochers pay. Any government system will create more functionaries, more fraudsters and more moochers. Massachusetts has already had to cut back on its promised coverage of poor immigrants... And wait times have nearly doubled to 55 days! It's a perfect example of a crappy system.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 07:00 PM
And by the way, Padikiller, your insinuation that
the health care systems in other developed countries
are awful is wrong. In fact, those systems are
enormously popular; and they're less expensive,
with better health care outcomes.
Your implication that Medicare is wasteful and
inefficient is also misleading. Sure, there is waste,
fraud and abuse. But there is plenty of waste,
fraud and abuse in private insurance programs
too.
Despite your denial, there IS a problem with
health care in this country. 45 million people
in this country are uninsured. More than half
of those (despite your claim to the contrary)
cannot afford insurance. Another 16 million
people are underinsured. 100,000 people a
year die unnecessarily due to lack of needed
care, 48,000 thousand because of lack of health
insurance. The United States
spends more money on health care per capita
than any other developed country in the world.
Yet our health care outcomes are worse. We
are 42nd (and falling) in life expectancy,
and our infant mortality rate is near the
bottom amongst the developed nations.
Part of this is because we do NOT ensure that
all of our citizens have coverage.
Health care costs in this country are rising
at an alarming rate. In 2008, total health
care expenditures were 16.2% of GDP; it
will be 25% in 2025, 37% in
2050. This is not a sustainable trend.
Denying it doesn't make it go away.
Your statement that "the average American
spends more money on entertainment and
alcohol than he does on health care" is an
interesting statistic. Where do you get it?
Given that so many are not paying for health
insurance, it's not surprising. They're
buying entertainment and alchohol instead!
All kidding aside, this statistic, if true,
is all the more reason to require that
everybody pay into the health care system.
These people should be buying health care,
not booze. If they don't buy it, then you
and I will pay for it in our own premiums.
You've mentioned several times that a Canadian
politician has come to the US for a cancer
treatment. Americans, as it turns out,
are going overseas for treatment too. In
increasing numbers; because they can get
quality care, at lower cost.
Reform is not just desirable, it's necessary.
And it will happen. Massachusetts is the first,
but other states will follow suit. Vermont
is ready to pass a single payer system. And
eventually, the other states will institute
reforms too. Not because "liberals want to
take other peoples money", but because there
is really no choice.
So, Padislayer, time is not on your side.
#20 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 07:07 PM
Well, the cat is finally out of the bag, Rick..
We have to "ensure" (TRANSLATION: "force") insurance for all, and all will be better!..
This despite the claim that insurance IS the problem, in large part, at least according to the liberals..
Rick wants to have it both ways in this debate - First he claims that medical isn't free to moochers in ER's because the moochers "have to pay"... Then he changes his tunerr, decrying the cost of the mooching to others, and then demands that we insure these moochers (at taxpayer expense) and somehow, magically, this expanded coverage will reduce the cost of mooching... How, exactly? Well, we'll have to pass the bill to see how much we'll save.
The crying about the rising cost of health care is nonsense. Liberals know that government control of health care will only increase the total cost. Indeed, there are two... and ONLY two ways to reduce the total cost of health care:
1. Provide fewer services, or
2. Provide crappier services.
PERIOD. It ain't complicated. There is no Health Care Fairy to bestow free Band Aids upon the uninsured masses.
There is no way to reduce spending without reducing standards. Paying doctors or nurses or pharmacists less money makes crappier care. Failing to build or upgrade facilities makes crappier care. Cutting off R&D money to drug manufacturers makes crappier care. Etc. Etc. Etc.
And even the liberals can't really be stupid enough to honestly believe that inserting the government into the free market will add any efficiency or result in any economy.
What these liberals really want see is the government providing services, because they have the 1964, old-school commie, pie-in-the-sky mistaken belief that the government can actually provide services more efficiently or equitably than the free market economy can... Despite the fact that history has proven them wrong again and again.
In defense of this liberal silliness, all we get are platitudes...
In response to the specific fact that the Premier of Quebec hightailed it to the U.S. for medical treatment for a serious illness, we get the nebulous and unfounded claim that "increasing numbers" of Americans are leaving the country for treatment (Who? How many? For what? Cancer? Or toothaches?).
Well, I've got some news for you - it will be a snowy day in Hell before we see Michael Moore scheduling his gastric bypass surgery in Havana.
We have the best health care in the world and we LIKE it that way. We WANT it to cost the most because we don't want to wait 100 days for an MRI when we have cancer (like you will wait in Toronto).
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 11 May 2011 at 11:51 AM