tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post1466539843120715293..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Using the Wrong Tool for the JobScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-79695841062417991682007-10-11T17:50:00.000-06:002007-10-11T17:50:00.000-06:00The problem is that the patient is not the custome...The problem is that the patient is not the customer. The government is the customer. And just as insurance companies today interfere and tell doctors what they can and can't do, the government ends up regulating what doctors can and can't do. We already have this problem with Medicare today. Only when the patient is also the customer does the relationship actually work.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-13127646927166249962007-10-11T11:14:00.000-06:002007-10-11T11:14:00.000-06:00I don't understand why you believe a single payer ...I don't understand why you believe a single payer system restricts everyone to "basic care". The decision about what care should be provided is one that is properly made between a patient and provider based on the needs of the patient, not on ability to pay. If we remove the huge bureaucratic oppression of the private insurance industry, physicians are free to make their decisions solely upon their professional expertise and their understanding of the patient and their needs and desires.<BR/><BR/>I have not experienced the health system in Norway, but if it has issues then we should learn from their experience and design our solution to avoid them. We should not simply reject the only viable option for fixing our health care system because some other country has a less than perfect solution.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-73966577539823566982007-10-10T18:19:00.000-06:002007-10-10T18:19:00.000-06:00The only thing a fixed payer plan can guarantee is...The only thing a fixed payer plan can guarantee is equal access at the basic coverage. This works great for healthy people. It doesn't work so great for people that really need help.<BR/><BR/>I saw how badly this worked when I lived in Norway. This all starts with very good intentions, but the system soon becomes one mess of shortages. Politicians mandate certain levels of coverage, which the system soon proves incapable of fully delivering. In the end, everyone gets the same crappy level of care except for those that buy up.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-43896735747316952442007-10-10T11:09:00.000-06:002007-10-10T11:09:00.000-06:00Sorry Scott - got mixed up there. Actually the si...Sorry Scott - got mixed up there. Actually the single-payer system enhances and clarifies the relationship between the patient and the provider. The provider's motivation becomes quality of care and overall patient health instead of cost-cutting, currying favor with the insurers, and maximizing profits.<BR/><BR/>If you look at the relevant data (actual health of the population, available of care, etc.) the major industrialized nations with government health care all surpass the United States. <BR/><BR/>Every American, like every human, is entitled to receive decent health care when needed. The role of government is to make sure that right is defended in spite of the failure of the private health care marketplace. This is not an ideological debate it is about morality and human rights.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-79426420868949890452007-10-09T19:13:00.000-06:002007-10-09T19:13:00.000-06:00I'm Scott, not Cameron. I work in private industr...I'm Scott, not Cameron. I work in private industry, but I have worked for the bloated bureaucracy both as an employee and as a contractor. Nobody is arguing that private industry is the paragon of perfection when it comes to efficiency and customer focus; however, multiple empircal studies show that private industry consistently far outperforms the best government agencies in these respects.<BR/><BR/>Nor am I arguing, as does Rastakhiz, that government should adopt all private business practices. Indeed, I am arguing that this is impossible.<BR/><BR/>The health insurance industry obfuscates the provider-consumer relationship so that the patient is not the provider's actual customer. That's a problem. This is why I mentioned health saving accounts in <A HREF="http://reachupward.blogspot.com/2007/10/universal-health-coverage-to-be-pushed.html" REL="nofollow">this recent post</A>.<BR/><BR/>The single-payer system with which folks on the Left are so enamored would only duplicate the huge mess they have in other countries with single payer systems and would amplify the problems with our current insurance- and government-obfuscated system.<BR/><BR/>As GMU Econ prof Don Boudreaux <A HREF="http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/reality_is_not_optional/index.html" REL="nofollow">recently wrote</A>, "The elemental problem is that more and more people feel entitled to vast quantities of high-quality health care paid for by someone else. And politicians, ever lusting for office, are only too happy to conjure the ridiculous illusion that A will get top-flight service from B when C is forced by G to pay the bills."Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-56740577639060817262007-10-09T05:42:00.000-06:002007-10-09T05:42:00.000-06:00Cameron, I don't know if you work in corporate Ame...Cameron, I don't know if you work in corporate America as I do, but if so you are probably aware that efficiency and cost-effectiveness are hardly hallmarks of private industry these days. In fact, I find over and over that private for-profit corporations are making decisions based on executive whim, the last good sales pitch, or posturing for a promotion more than on sound business principles.<BR/><BR/>As for the application to the health care debate, this is where the analogy breaks down most. If there is a prime example of bloated bureaucracy in private business, it is most certainly in the health care insurance business. In fact, the inefficiency of the claims processing apparatus is completely intentional - it reduces or delays expenditures. When you consider that each of several competing companies has their own unique bloated claims bureaucracy, the burden falls on health care providers who must hire large administrative staffs of their own just to insure they are paid.<BR/><BR/>In a single-payer health plan, the only plan worth considering (although the "major" Dem candidates all have bizarrely complex alternatives), the current mishmosh of competing private insurers (competing to increase profits, not to serve insureds or providers) would be replaced by a single entity with a single set of forms and policies. Since the objective of a government insurance plan is to process claims and pay providers as rapidly as possible, even if it were somewhat inefficient, it would be far better at achieving those goals than the current system.<BR/><BR/>I would also question whether we really want government to operate in the "more dynamic" style of private industry. That style is designed not to produce higher quality goods and services, it is designed to maximize profits. This is most certainly the case with private health insurance.Charles Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02975241234146573609noreply@blogger.com