Alternatives to government health takeover
His determination was not enough. When the American people took a closer look at the only question that really matters on health care reform - will the proposed changes ultimately help or hurt the patient? - they found President Clinton's ideas lacking. HillaryCare, as it became known, died a fairly spectacular death.
It seems in this case that history does, indeed, repeat itself, as the central premise of the Clinton health care proposals - funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to government in the naive hope that bureaucrats are the answer to our health care system's shortcomings - has come back into vogue with the arrival of another relatively young, ambitious new Democratic president in the White House. That does not mean, however, that the ideas have suddenly become any less objectionable. read the rest
1 comment:
I don't see how those ideas will reduce health care costs much. Reducing liability damages will not significantly reduce health care costs. Moreover, I've seen enough medical malpractice to believe this idea is dangerous. Allowing people to shop for insurance across state lines is problematic because laws regarding insurance differ from state to state. For example, the reason policies are cheaper in some states is because those states allow insurers to discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions. I pay more than people in other states because New York State law forbids this type of discrimination. And of course medical costs go down when people have to pay out of pocket. But what that means is less care. 100 years ago medical care was cheap and people paid out of pocket. Life expectancy was more than a decade less than what it is now, maybe two decades less. Is that the goal? Here's a description of what is driving health care costs up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/business/economy/14view.html?em
Post a Comment