Who Pays?
Who is going to pay for that wonderful new health care utopia we've been promised? We keep hearing gleeful cries of how Obama's going to stick it to the rich. Kaus has some inkling of who else is going to pay:
Here we're dramatically changing insurance (no more "preexisting conditions") and insuring the uninsured and creating a health care exchange and promoting a public option and generally telling everyone they can stop worrying about whether they will have coverage. It's all going to be deficit neutral over a ten year period....On tax increases, Obama said
I don't want that final one-third of the cost of health care to be completely shouldered on the backs of middle-class families who are already struggling in a difficult economy. And so if I see a proposal that is primarily funded through taxing middle-class families, I'm going to be opposed to that ... [E.A.]In standard Washspeak, this means Obama is open to a health reform that taxes middle class families as long as it isn't "primarily" or "completely" funded by taxes on middle class families. But 49% funded by taxes on middle class families? ... However you interpret these sentences, it's hard to see how Obama hasn't given a flashing green light to non-trivial tax increases on middle class families.
(Not that I think "the rich" should be stuck with everybody's expenses.)
And who are all these uninsured people? Not just people with pre-existing conditions who can't get into insurance programs. Here, from Investor's Business Daily, the reason behind this vast health care experiment, the myth of the 45 million uninsured:
You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured -- that's almost 18 million people -- have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.Is it really a good idea to tax working people to subsidize those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily buy? The answer, of course, is no.
One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.
That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. -- that's 12.6 million people -- aren't even citizens.
Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.
Putting the two together, this suggests that -- surprise -- a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.By some estimates, another 20% or so is uninsured only for a couple of months a year. As TV journalist John Stossel recently noted, as many as a third of all those eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.
Once you whittle it down, you start to realize that the number of hard-core uninsured who are citizens is in fact fairly small -- perhaps half the reported 47 million or less.
Yet it's not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country. No, that's not the best way to care for someone. But to say that people have "no access to health care," as we often hear, simply is a lie.Moreover, it's not clear that those who go the emergency care route are worse off. A study by health economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago found "no evidence" that boosting coverage for all would be a cost-effective solution to improve overall health.
And, by the way, what, exactly, are we all going to be getting? Here's a CNN piece (thanks, Snake!) of what they're actually proposing.
The longer this gets delayed, the more truth comes out about it.
People have realized that the way that we're going to "save" money is by letting people die needlessly.
Do you think Obamacare would have paid for Cathy's experimental treatments? Neither do I.
Everyone has a relative that wouldn't be alive right now under Obamacare. When that realization sets in, they revolt.
brian at July 23, 2009 7:07 AM
Even defining the problem we are trying to solve is an attempt to destroy his presidency.
I plead guilty. The sooner we are done with this glib poseur, the better for all of us. The only analogy I can come up with is Obama the exterminator: If your house had ants, his solution would be to burn it to the ground. With you inside.
MarkD at July 23, 2009 7:08 AM
I was up early yesterday and listening to the radio when I was stunned to hear National Public Radio announce that 84% of Americans have health insurance.
84%??? Then why on earth do we have this monster bill? Surely finding medical coverage for 16% of the populace does not require such a paperwork monstrosity.
Lynne at July 23, 2009 7:25 AM
Another reason to not stick it to the rich is that they aren't rich enough to pay for health care for the rest of us. If you taxed them at 100% (and somehow got them to keep working) the extra revenue would only amount to a few hundred billion dollars.
Pseudonym at July 23, 2009 7:45 AM
Obama's big gripe seems to be the inequality of health care not the uninsured. He appears to be dead set against private insurance. Now given his world view (which is a MILD form of socialism) I see where he's coming from I just think he's wrong.
[quote]People have realized that the way that we're going to "save" money is by letting people die needlessly.[/quote] I called into a local radio show about a similar comment. This is bullshit, just plain and simple bullshit. Huge portions of healthcare can be stream lined to reduce cost. More automation to clean up the idiot hospital infrastructure, impose logical maximums for liability (granny dieing at 90 instead of 91 isn't worth 2 mil), having less people with their hand in the pot of for profit insurance, improved US mass production of capital medical equipment, the list goes on.
Now if the government bureaucracy is running it then yes letting people die needlessly will happen. The radio talk clown made it clear that cost cutting would lead to deaths regardless of how it's done.
vlad at July 23, 2009 8:10 AM
Brian has an opinion to share about health care!
—
> Now given his world view (which is
> a MILD form of socialism)
First of all, I don't think he's enough of an ideologue to be so neatly pegged. He's a Chicago politician, and he's all about pandering. The constituency that elected him wants more socialism, so he's gonna give it to them. The problem is that there's absolutely no backstop to his efforts. He's zero-sum and he's intellectually slutty, and he'll run this engine off the rails without even knowing there's a brake lever by his knee.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 23, 2009 8:24 AM
Actually, euthanasia will have to be a part of any health plan, private or public. The baby boom cannot be kept alive by heroic measures into their 80s and 90s. We will run out of money.
Get used to it. If you are in your 80s, and get an expensive-to-treat illness that even if treated, will give you another six months, you should die.
You had your life. Why burden everybody?
As a society, we will have to adjust and even embrace and encourage euthanasia. The good man is one who will want to die quickly, affairs in order, and painlessly.
I see no reason at all why elderly cancer sufferers etc should not blow pot and snort coke, heroin whatever, en route to a speedy death.
Beyond that, we need binding and swift arbitration for all medical disputes.
No, it will not all be fair. Who said life is fair?
i-holier-than-thou at July 23, 2009 9:05 AM
PS-I am fine with whacking rich people with taxes to pay for our health care system, although I think we should top down our expenses, maxed at 10 percent or so of GDP.
The rich don't serve in the military anymore.
The rich are very patriotic except when it comes to paying taxes or serving in war. Oh, that. Besides that, they really wave the flag around.
Maybe they can give up a little bit.
i-holier-than-thou at July 23, 2009 9:09 AM
vlad at July 23, 2009 9:25 AM
>> Actually, euthanasia
spooky stuff.
Feebie at July 23, 2009 10:26 AM
Medical insurance in the US is broken, even though I admit I don't know how to fix it.
Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to pay for my mother to die at home. She needs round-the-clock care. Not extreme, life-saving care. Just someone to keep her from sitting in her own shit and give her occasional shots of morphine until I or my sister get home from work.
Her insurance covers 20 hours a week of hospice. Depending on whether or not she lives longer than the three months her doctor has given her, we may have to sell the house they live in. If that happens, mom will have to go to into a nursing home and Dad will have to go into an assisted living facility, which will completely wipe them out. At that point, they will both be eligible for Medicaid and will be mooching off the government for the rest of their lives. Interestingly, she would have been entitled to much more hospice had she been on Medicaid to begin with.
My parents have always been wise with their money and have a lot of money tied up in their home, and still it's not enough. I fully recognize that this is what they saved for: to take care of themselves when they got older. But there's something wrong when it would have been better for them not to have saved anything at all.
MonicaP at July 23, 2009 11:10 AM
"Huge portions of healthcare can be stream lined to reduce cost."
Do tell. If you have these answers you could be very rich, very quickly. Or, you're just spouting bullshit.
" More automation to clean up the idiot hospital infrastructure,"
Again, don't keep these secrets to yourself. Please help the millions of people working every day in the US healthcare system trying to do what you say is so simple.
" impose logical maximums for liability (granny dieing at 90 instead of 91 isn't worth 2 mil),"
Now, you're starting to sound like The Messiah. Using a 90 year old granny is a nice example. How about a 60 year old looking at expensive Cancer treatment? How about a 50 year old? Will you publish your cell phone number so Doctors could check with you before they deny treatment?
"having less people with their hand in the pot of for profit insurance, improved US mass production of capital medical equipment,"
Yes, let's create a cabinet level dept. We could call it the Department of Medical Equipment. We could get former Soviet govt officials to staff it. I'm sure we'll see great gains in innovation and technology.
" the list goes on."
Only in your pea-brain.
sean at July 23, 2009 11:22 AM
Vlad-
Check out the top federal income tax rate in the 1950s in the USA, with a very conservative Republican Congress in charge, and Eisenhower for President. It was 90 percent. It was cut radically in ensuing decades.
The rich in America have never been so rich, nor has anybody ever in all history ever lived so well.
It's great! I am all for it.
But!
But since rich people will nor serve in uniform to defend their country (even if we are told Islamic creep-loonies will destroy the entire Western world), shouldn't that cough up some taxes?
Or, let's go back to drafting our best and brightest. All aboard to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq. Two or three years of duty. Oh, Where is everybody?
i-holier-than-thou at July 23, 2009 11:48 AM
First medical records, simple get the damn data from the ambulance during transport directly to the doctors. This enables you to have the catheter lab set up. Your cath lab is now on call and not constantly staffed. The advantage, the lab is ready to perfrom the catheterization when the patient arrives and you don't have high cost personnel sitting around waiting.
Go to a shit hole hospital in the ghetto vs say Mayo clinic, St Francis. Take you nappy head out of your ass and look around. At the shit holes all the medical information is on paper that has to be walked directly from a to be. Mayo everything is electronic and is instantly available.vlad at July 23, 2009 11:52 AM
Crid:
Y'know, for under a grand, I can come out there to adjust your attitude some time in late September. Lemme know if you want me to take care of that chip you've got on your shoulder.
vlad:
No, vlad, THIS is bullshit.
Look, Obama's not a mild socialist. He's an outright Stalinist. I used to say he was a fascist, but he doesn't have the nationalistic fervor that Mussolini had.
If you've got any insights into how to streamline the system, we're all ears. I can tell you from first hand experience that the government is pretty much to blame for the system being as inefficient as it is. Ever heard of HIPAA? Look it up. It has fucked everything up. I had the opportunity (HA!) to be in an ER of a major hospital here at the beginning of the year. I watched as the nurses kept sitting down at computers to do data entry, while there were three or four clerks (obviously not nurses or doctors by their attire) doing other data entry. Why? HIPAA. Nurses and doctors should be spending their very expensive time with their highly-trained asses working with patients, not doing data entry. HIPAA forbids such things, or at least makes the water so murky that nobody knows what to do.
As with everything else on your list, you haven't a clue.
brian at July 23, 2009 11:52 AM
You know what? Since you insist on continuously spouting this lie, how about you never post here again, ok?
brian at July 23, 2009 11:54 AM
Who dies first?
Universal Healthcare will be killing the exact people it was meant to "save".
You will have shitty services all the way around for everyone, and only the people who have money (upper middle class and wealthy) will be able to afford decent healthcare and have the benefit of life saving or life sustaining benefits.
Poor people and the middle class will all be priced out. (Who does first?)
A society reliant on External Authority to solve their problems will no longer be given the privilege of calling themselves a free society.
Feebie at July 23, 2009 12:01 PM
Feeb -
That's why it's imperative to make fee-for-service illegal. Nobody knows if it's in any of the bills that are pending, but if you're gonna set up a universal system, you have to ensure that there's no way around it, or the wrong sort of people might get care they aren't entitled to.
More people will be condemned to death or disability for the sake of fairness.
Vonnegut was a seer, I tell you.
brian at July 23, 2009 12:07 PM
holier: Fair point in that regard and I would support tax cuts for vets regardless of income. The would bring back the three sons paradigm of the old nobility, One for the family, one for the church, and one for the military.
I'm not against upping the taxes on the rich within reason. My worry is that this program will balloon and the waste will sky rocket as it tends to with vast monolithic bureaucracies. Also having to deal with socialist medical care in places like Russia I think that the poor that this bill is supposed to help will actually get hurt worst. The rich will just fly to Mexico and pay cash so now Mexico will have the top end technology, and we waste money on bureaucracy which helps no one.My hope for this bill is that is scares the shit out of the medical field especially records and capital equipment to stream line the process.
vlad at July 23, 2009 12:08 PM
Vlad - the point you keep missing in all of this is that the government itself is the cause of much of this inefficiency.
And they like it that way, because they can use it as a bludgeon. Nobody can interpret HIPAA, so it hangs over everyone's head.
The government has the Louisville Slugger from Hell. And they'll swing it at anyone who doesn't do what they want.
Change that (yeah, right) and you can make improvements.
brian at July 23, 2009 12:22 PM
As far as MRI and X-Ray hospitals avoid using them because of cost and I'm not entirely sure why? Haven't actually gotten a straight answer as to why such a high cost, nothing in the technical aspect explains it.
As far as medical disposables you'd turn pale if you knew the mark up on some of them especially given that they are manufactured in China.
Stalin executed the wealthy, the well to do and competent officers. Even an increase to the tax levels in 1950 would be horrid but I wouldn't call it a firing squad. I replied with fact checking, is he actually pulling this out of his ass? I know the tax rates he quoted are legit.vlad at July 23, 2009 12:28 PM
vlad at July 23, 2009 12:32 PM
"First medical records, simple get the damn data from the ambulance during transport directly to the doctors. This enables you to have the catheter lab set up.
Wow. That will save thousands!!!! Seriously, you tool. What's the cost savings and what percentage of the total cost do you think that is. Keep trying though. A few thousand more ideas like that and you'll have something.
"Go to a shit hole hospital in the ghetto vs say Mayo clinic, St Francis. Take you nappy head out of your ass and look around. At the shit holes all the medical information is on paper that has to be walked directly from a to be. Mayo everything is electronic and is instantly available."
I see. Brilliant idea. I wonder why no one ever thought of this. Oh, wait. They did. In fact it's part of the stimulus bill passed months ago. Providers now have a financial incentive to adopt electronic medical records. They initially will get paid for "meaningful use" as a carrot and eventually punished via lower reimbursement rates if they don't comply, as a stick.
Scratch that brilliant "new" idea.
But you know all this since you're in that field. Right, dillweed?
The rest of your response is nonsense so I'm not going to waste my time.
I will add though that you added nothing. Besides bullshit.
sean at July 23, 2009 12:42 PM
Vlad - ihole was spouting the lie that "the rich don't join the military".
It's a disgusting falsehood. Some shitbag in the Senate decided to toss a variant of it out during the Iraq war, and McCain and several others pounded him for it. Seems that said shitball believed that the Republicans oughtn't be supporting the war "because you aren't sending your children off to die". Well, it's a volunteer military, nobody gets SENT. But all that aside, at least one of the senators that pounced had a son who was scheduled for deployment, and one other (McCain?) had a child in-theater.
ihole needs to repeat this standard leftist diatribe because it gives him the veneer of moral superiority. It's the "Chickenhawk!" argument brought to its absolute absurd end. And it needs to stop.
Have you seen what RFID equipment costs? Have you tried to implement it? I have. Most hospitals are not running the kinds of budgets that will allow for the implementation of a multi-million dollar patient tracking system.
The whole shebang is expensive enough that DoD procurement (which requires RFID on every damn thing) allows for pre-programmed RFID tags/labels to be used rather than custom programmed.
The printers (remember, we're talking industrial-grade here - consumer grade won't cut it in a production environment) are a couple grand a piece all by themselves. Then there's the cost of the media. Not to mention the patient management system that goes under all of it. Wireless handheld computers, wireless networks throughout a 27-story hospital complex, appropriately shielded equipment so that the WiFi and RFID don't interfere with, say, a heart monitor.
And just because the government mandates it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Even if we assume that the government is going to make all the necessary funds available immediately following the passage of whatever bullshit comes out of Congress, you're looking at probably 5-10 years to implement.
Whereas forcing transparency and visibility of costs to the end users could be put in place pretty much immediately with nowhere near the price tag.
brian at July 23, 2009 12:45 PM
Universal Healthcare is like communism or a career in prostitution looks good on paper if you try not to think about it.
vlad at July 23, 2009 12:45 PM
I do support the infrastructure spending. I'd rather private industry take care of it I don't see that happening.
vlad at July 23, 2009 1:01 PM
vlad at July 23, 2009 1:14 PM
"Check out the top federal income tax rate in the 1950s in the USA, with a very conservative Republican Congress in charge, and Eisenhower for President. It was 90 percent. "
Nobody actually paid that rate. Back then, there were a gazillion deductions, at least some of which were available to almost anyone who was gainfully employed (e.g., interest on revolving credit debt). In fact, once all the deductions and exemptions were toted up, there were quite a few apparently wealthy people who paid zero in some years. That was the original justification for the AMT -- "they're using deductions to get out of their fair share, so we'll set a floor for how much they will pay regardless of deductions." Of course, it was also said at the time that the AMT would never impact more than a few dozen "tax shelter abusers" nationwide.
Nowdays, in the soon-to-come deduction-free world of tax for the middle class, if the top rate goes to 50%, then 50% is what you will pay. Everyone who volunteers to have your paycheck cut in half, raise your hand. I didn't think so.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2009 1:30 PM
BTW, Amy, Walter Olsen has an article in Forbes this week. One of the nuggets he's uncovered about Obamacare is that it will allow any lawyer anywhere to file third-party malpractice suits on behalf of the government. The alleged victim of the malpractice need not give consent or even be aware that such a suit has been filed. Yeah, there's a big cost savings.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2009 1:36 PM
"Look up what a cath lab team makes per hour jizz jacket. "
you certainly do get points for creative insulting names. That would really come in handy if we were still in second grade.
How does notifying a Cath lab team from the ambulance
reduce their cost? If it's a long ambulance ride, the team will be sitting around waiting for the patient, driving UP costs. (Note: in the interest of reducing costs in the healthcare system, step away from the keyboard before your head explodes, half-wit)
sean at July 23, 2009 1:44 PM
>> That's why it's imperative to make fee-for-service illegal.
HELL NO! If political morons voted for the clowns that will put this in place, I don't think everyone should have to suffer. I still want to be able to get services if I have the means ...why should my quality of life suffer? What you are suggesting is class envy ("well, since we can't get the best treatments...NO ONE CAN") Bullshit.
Take away my choice to pay for better care? Brian, you have got to be out of your mind. Am I reading you right, seriously!
The people that voted for this are doing it to themselves. That is all I was pointing it out. Maybe they'll think twice before voting next time.
Feebie at July 23, 2009 1:46 PM
Feeb - I certainly don't support it. But it is the only way to make a universal system.
See also: Canada.
Obama's already said he would support raising certain taxes even if it would result in lower revenues from decreased economic activity because it's "fair".
If fairness is your objective, then you can't have the wealthy opting out of your government health system, can you?
Can you say "Thank you 52%"?
I knew you could.
brian at July 23, 2009 1:55 PM
Brian:
Please watch.
http://www.youtube.com/stevencrowder
Thank you.
(Canada's wealthy can still get better services...for a price).
Feebie at July 23, 2009 2:06 PM
In WWII, the oldest Kennedy son Joseph, died in plane in European theater. The nest son, John F., had his back nearly broken in the Pacific. The senior George Bush served in the Pacific as well.
Hey, the Kennedys or the senior Bush have (or had) authority to talk about service. They walked the walk.
These feckless poltroons who call themselves Republicans today are indeed Chickenhawks. Where are the Bush twins? I don't expect combat boots, but no tour in Iraq as nurses, or supply soldiers?
George W. served bravely--on the New Mexico border. What a pussy.
Yeah, today's Republicans: no service in uniform, want low taxes, but wave that flag around.
Sunshine soldiers and pussy patriots.
Brain: When, oh when, is Mommy going to take away your Internet privileges?
Got any bricks laying around, there in Toughtown, Connecticut?
i-holier-than-thou at July 23, 2009 2:14 PM
hey douchebag, Mom couldn't take my internet away if she wanted to. I've been paying for it myself for 15 years. Oh, and there's this little thing about living on my own (that you wouldn't know about) to go with that too.
You just don't get it, do you? You, like most liberal assholes, figure that in order for a politician to support a war he must force his children to join the service and fight in theater, or he's a chickenhawk.
Of course, since you weren't sending your children to plant IEDs on the side of the road, what does that say about you and your opinion?
See? I can play the "Shut up" game too.
Douchebags like you are bad for my blood pressure.
brian at July 23, 2009 2:33 PM
> for under a grand, I can come
> out there to adjust
Appreciate the offer, but I'm insured, so professional help isn't a problem...
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 23, 2009 2:39 PM
Then perhaps you should use that insurance to go to a professional and find out why you are absolutely obsessed with the insurance status of someone you've never met who is three timezones away from you.
brian at July 23, 2009 2:59 PM
But I already know, Brian! It's because you speak so condescendingly of all the other players in the arena... All the practitioners, all the politicians, all the insurers, all the patients... They're all buried under your bitter, sarcastic, obscene fusillades of bitterness. But you give no demonstration of great responsibility in your own conduct. It's like a drunk driver who makes it home with no sideswipes and therefore asserts that no crime was committed.
Naughty!; naughty.
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 23, 2009 3:07 PM
Sorry for the double bitter, I'm at work
work
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 23, 2009 3:32 PM
i-holier-than-thou is the distilled essence of an internet troll.
Spartee at July 23, 2009 3:40 PM
Wow, the idiots are out today. Hey dipshits, the rich already pay more in taxes because they make more and consume more. And has anybody done a little research into the early projections of what medicaid would cost when implemented? Guess what, it was a tenth of the actual cost. So Borat's health care projections are naive bullshit. And how about we fully fund our existing commitments like social security before we take on another heavy social program. As far as the rich not sending their kids off to war. Who gives a flying fuck, it is all volunteer and works quite well that way. You want to protest some kind of class boundaries time warp back to '68 and burn a draft card.
ron at July 23, 2009 4:58 PM
Vlad said:
How much increase is reasonable, in your opinion? What should the tax rate be?
Pseudonym at July 23, 2009 7:28 PM
"As long as neither the name or the social is combined with the stored records HIPAA is not violated."
Hey Vlad, please tell me that you don't really work in this business.
Seriously. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
sean at July 23, 2009 8:05 PM
> i-holier-than-thou is the
> distilled essence of an
> internet troll.
Hey now! Hey hey hey! Where's the love? What's a guy gotta do?
Crid [CridComment@gmail] at July 23, 2009 10:54 PM
Only a complete idiot could write a line like:
"You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured -- that's almost 18 million people -- have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage."
Private health insurance -- an HMO -- for my family of four is costing me $15,000 a year, with an $8000 deductible ($2000 per person). And it isn't even very comprehensive.
It's ridiculous to think that a family earning $50,000 a year can afford to spend 30 percent of their gross income to PARTIALLY protect themselves against the possibility of catastrophic health problems.
What burns me up is that nobody is addressing the real reason that health care costs are so high in the United States -- the business model of the healthcare industry pays doctors and hospitals for unnecessary care that actually degrades the health of the patient. See:
http://blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=3441
Geoffrey James at July 24, 2009 6:43 AM
Here I go again...
Keep your money until you need care. Get help for real and big expenses. Carry your medical account, including a medical investment account, in your wallet, so you're not tied to your job.
Be responsible. Yourself.
Radwaste at July 24, 2009 7:28 AM
It's a matter of priorities, and of details like the cost of living where they are. I agree that people in that situation will have difficulty keeping up with the Joneses while paying for health care. My suggestion: reevaluate priorities. Nobody needs a new car (vs a used), more than one TV, cable TV, to eat out three times a week, kids, etc.
(I add kids because people don't realize ahead of time how expensive they are. If you can't afford their health care, you should wait to have them.)
Nobody addresses it because it's not true. The article "The Cost Conundrum" in The New Yorker has been debunked; the reason Medicare expenses are higher in McAllen, TX than in El Paso, TX is because McAllen's Medicare recipients are twice as sick as El Paso's Medicare recipients. When we compare Medicare recipients with two or more major conditions (such as diabetes and heart disease) we find that per-patient spending in McAllen is the same as in El Paso and the city in Colorado that the article also mentioned.
There are many reasons why health care costs in the United States are so high. They include, but are not limited to:
o the government distorts health care prices, forcing providers to charge more to you and me in order to cover costs incurred by Medicare patients, Medicaid patients and indigent users of emergency rooms
o the system incentivizes people to maximize their health care consumption
o it is difficult for people to switch insurers and providers
o the supply of health care providers is constrained by multiple factors
o new, expensive treatments are available
o we are affluent and choose to spend more
Pseudonym at July 24, 2009 7:52 AM
Leave a comment