Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Paul Krugman (New York Times) on the Health Care Battle in America: "The fact is that individual health insurance, as currently constituted, just doesn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will — as they are in, say, California — they offer cheap policies to the young and healthy (and try to yank coverage if you get sick) but refuse to cover anyone likely to need expensive care. Yet simply requiring that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions, as in New York, doesn’t work either: premiums are sky-high because only the sick buy insurance. "The solution — originally proposed, believe it or not, by analysts at the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation — is a three-legged stool of regulation and subsidies. As in New York, insurers are required to cover everyone; in return, everyone is required to buy insurance, so that healthy as well as sick people are in the risk pool. Finally, subsidies make those mandated insurance purchases affordable for lower-income families." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

14 comments:

  1. That sentence by Krugman is, as usual, right on the money.

    ...and speaking of money, our system of letting the "profit motive" be the basis for functioning of an entire nation's health and well-being is NUTTY!

    How does "for-profit," where return on investment is the prime directive, even WORK for someone whose care might be expensive, lengthy and certainly unprofitable?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chuck, you hit the nail on the head!


    As one of the comments on this editorial put it, "the health insurance companies are rooting for our grandmothers and other sick family members to die--quickly-- so they don't have to pay out any money. Private heath insurance is about making money. No more, no less.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is being proposed as a solution is a privatised state welfare system, which whilst being more comprehensive will also be more expensive than it need be simply to keep the shareholders happy. So why not go the whole hog? State insured social medicine, cut out some of the middlemen at least, no need to tinker with the private insurance based health care system, just supplant it with a tax funded universal health care system. There will still be a market in cosmetic surgery to keep the health bean counters happy and our tummmies tucked - who could ask for more Doug?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think a Universal health care system would be our best bet if the Supreme court gets rid of this one now. I would like to see all those insurance companies that have been making money hand over fist put out of business completely. But I am sure the wealthy will not like this, they will keep their own policies with any insurer to keep them in the fit of health

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, a lot of people on the Left hopwe the Supreme Court will strike down Affordfable Health Care's individual mandate. By doing so, they logically reason, a future Congress will approve such such a tax-funded system as you suggest, AA.

    I am just not so optomistic that will come about. The reason being in part because when Medicare (insurance for old people) and Medicaid (for the very poor) were introduced in the 1960's , it was thought by many that these programs were making way for the type of universal system other nations had.

    It turned out not to be so, for a variey of inside-Washington reasons.

    I hope I can be proven wrong and such a plan will go through--there will always be private hospitals to cater to the cosmetic needs of the rich and near-rich. God forbid they go through lfe with untucked eyelids and tummies. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, Marty, Iit would be nice to tame the private insurance industry, since they don't really belong in the life-or-death end of the medical system, as Chuck pointed out below.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just dont understand why a Universal Health care system is soooo bad? Then it would cover everyone like Medicare does for the old. If other countries are using this kind of system, why cant we too? Save money and keep everyone covered.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marty I have lived within both systems and the thought is that more than likely Universal Health Care shall become the manner where there is a two tier system, one socialized and the other private as we have here
    in Canada. I can attest that it's not perfect, but no system is perfect and the more I read of Obamacare, it's almost looks as if Obama is doing just as Clinton did years ago - yet Clinton was never able to get it passed through. I think many don't really understand what universal health care is - and they have heard the bad side
    of these types of healthcare systems rather than the upside.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jack, is your system like what the UK has and what Australia has? I have heard those people really like their health care.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, it is Marty in fact Medicare began in Canada by a former Prime Minister named Tommy Douglas.
    Ironically, he was the first to come up with the concept of free healthcare for all and then others followed suit. As well, Canada has made many changes since its introduction from a one tier to that of a choice of being a two-tier health system. Many believe that Canada still is a one-tier system of health. This is why many come to think of Canada's health care. The reason is primarily due to Tommy introducing a system back in the 1950's I believe yet it has gone through many changes since then - yet many base it on the system it was within it's inception. Tommy Douglas is looked very high from many Canadians. I came to learn more of it by way of my father when I entered into Canada as a teenager. When living in New York I came to understand the health system in New York – I had insurance by way of Cigna.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't understand either Marty. It boogles my mind. I think it's the triumph of philosophy and greed over pragmatism. Health care is not a ordinary commodity

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wish to bite into this one Doug as I know someone in Mass., and within that state there is was a contingency fund right in nine years ago. As they had no coverage and at that time they figured that the hospital would not take them in. They had treatment by emerg.
    In this case the government in place is actually making the situation worse rather than better. Within this new revised medical plan do they not have a adendum where there are exceptions or areas where any given hospital can overstep the insurance company and have a set up medical system for the exceptions? If not - it's better that things stay the way they are - mind you how much money has been invested into bringing about this plan?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I really don't know enough about the Massachusetts system at that level Jack. Obviously the more people of al lages can get involved in a single health care system the more likely it seems to me there will be fewer exceptions needed.

    ReplyDelete