How would you change the U.S. Health Care System?
Question:
Answers:
Hi there,
I would go single-payer, at a minimum for economic reasons -- it's cheaper, it has the ability of making access to health care universal, not merely access to bare bones health policies unlikely to do the job of providing the medical care we need when we need it (like Massachusetts pseudo-universal health care, a mere legal mandate to purchase something akin to driver's insurance).
Let me post below a comment written by an economist on health care systems, in reply to a critic of Sicko. I think the economist does a great job of debunking the scare tactics of the pundits of social insurance systems: it is a bit long, but well worth reading.
Bangor Daily News
August 1, 2007
David Felix: 'Sicko' economics, round 2
John Goodman summarizes his critique of Michael Moore’s documentary
on health care reform as follows: "So what are we to make of Moore
and his ‘documentary’? Economists, like other scientists, study
reality in order to adapt to it. Artists, by contrast, selectively
focus on some facts and ignore others in order to recreate reality."
Bad economics is thus Goodman’s basic charge against "Sicko."
This charge prompted me, an economist, to see the documentary. My
conclusion? Moore is far less guilty of flawed economics and
disregard of relevant facts than is Goodman. Moore is also
straightforward about his values and ideology, whereas Goodman masks
his as scientific economics. This impels me to defend my profession
by exposing the falsity of his claims, and some of the salient facts
that he ignores.
Goodman rejects single payer universal coverage health systems, which
Moore favors, because they require bureaucratic rationing of medical
care, and impose longer waiting periods than do private market health
systems. The rationing complaint as such is irrelevant; markets also
ration, mostly by the purse. What they have been unable to do is
provide universal coverage.
The incentive for private health insurance companies is to maximize
profits by insuring low-risk clients and rejecting high risk ones.
That incentive promotes private bureaucratic rationing of services
and intensified screening of applicants. The U.S. public sector and
private charities have thus been pressured to finance treatment of
some sort for the rapidly rising millions of U.S. uninsured and
underinsured. "Sicko" illustrates various aspects of the problem.
Goodman gives it no mention whatsoever.
(David Felix then discusses numerous examples of Goodman's distortion
of the economics through major omissions.)
...what economists call deadweight losses, inefficient uses of
resources that reduce national welfare. "Sicko" illustrates such
losses in the U.S. system; Goodman ignores them.
Which brings us to the moral issue. The major religions advocate
egalitarian distribution of social welfare theologically, whereas
libertarian ideology prioritizes free markets and individual choice.
Each can become enmeshed by policy conflicts between theology and
economic reality.
Health reform is an exception. Moore has the easier advocacy task:
his single-payer reform is supported by both "scientific" economics
and widely held religious principles.
Goodman must show that socializing health insurance, even if it
lowers economic costs while improving health, is morally bad. His
critique avoids that question, other than hinting at a slippery slope
argument. My conclusion: Moore wins over Goodman on economics and
morality.
David Felix of Orono is professor emeritus of economics at Washington
University in St. Louis.
Oh man, don't get me started on this one. In a nutshell, I would give every low income person insurance no matter what! No one would die because they didn't have insurance... Like we all don't have enough problems in life! Ok, blood's boiling, I'm done! :)
I would stop all Free health care immediatly. Health care is a service like any other business, and Doctors deserve to charge for services rendered.
More Questions & Answers...