tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post7695080713207359610..comments2023-10-28T04:56:34.620-07:00Comments on Ground-Up Libertarian: Semi-Informed Thoughts on U.S. Health Carejsalvatihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16509764680257537430noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-33049517105364520862007-04-10T02:35:00.000-07:002007-04-10T02:35:00.000-07:00Check out the comments on this blog in response to...Check out the comments on this blog in response to Kling on Cato:<BR/><BR/>http://myrddinsworld.wordpress.com/2007/01/10/how-sick-am-i-exactly/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00193976347494775534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-17776438014542340012007-04-07T20:50:00.000-07:002007-04-07T20:50:00.000-07:00I found these letters interesting too:http://conte...I found these letters interesting too:<BR/><BR/>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/25/2461<BR/><BR/>Also that editorial I left you with, as I was thinking about it, is probably quite pessimistic.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312224023541798450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7314151811889089656.post-65023426774153119282007-04-07T20:43:00.000-07:002007-04-07T20:43:00.000-07:00well first of all, there's tons of doctors in the ...well first of all, there's tons of doctors in the US, so 'too high a standard' is not an issue. Compared with other countries, the US has a reasonable number of doctors: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/physicians/physicians.html .<BR/><BR/>The reason costs are so high is because a) nobody wants to get anything less than the best possible coverage and b) MONEY!! You think you can just take a sector of the economy where 15% of GDP gets spent, and drop that to 10% without people freaking out? not a chance. 5% of GDP? realigned? An IMMENSE undertaking. It'll happen, but not till the US is so screwed it has to happen.<BR/><BR/>If overinsurance has advantages though, they definitely have nothing to do with life expectancy, as pretty graphs here show: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/expenditure.html<BR/><BR/>As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I didn't really get anything out of it besides ideology. "because pre-established institutional organization is the main advantage of government", for example, is a sentence that doesn't make any sense to me. Also you frequently discuss 'socialized' health care. I know this exists in Sweden, but then you seem to be discussing the "single payer" system that most of the world uses. You go on to say that "if there were much cost saving associated wiht that then there would be a trend of health care insurance companies consolidating. Any business that's growing is NOT going to consolidate; consolidation is something that happens when there's trouble, think automakers and airlines. Consolidation always makes things more efficient; most mergers are associated with major lay-offs. But they're also generally undesirable for the industry. Also, most of the expense is absorbed by health care providers, who have to deal with multiple payers and complicated systems. I think in this case it's best to look at empirical data, so for instance, this: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768<BR/><BR/>The advantages of the government are 1) to fund a system based on taxes, so as to form an effective monopoly, 2) to provide care for poor people, so they don't end up clogging up the ER all the time, and so they can have preventative primary care for their chronic conditions so they don't have to get bad and only get treated when they're bad enough to come clog the ER and 3) to provide even and fair compensation to doctors and hospitals for services provided, no matter whom they provide it to.<BR/><BR/>I can't imagine how you'd expect a private system to give care to poor people. That's pretty much unimaginable.<BR/><BR/>All I can say is, any way you want to see it, whether based on life expectancy (above) or WHO rankings: http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html it would seem that every effective and cheap health care system is one-payer, or few-payer.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if this is irritable, but you really look like you didn't do much research. You can't just say 'seems like it wouldn't cut much costs' or 'seems like this drives up costs' without actually investigating those claims.<BR/><BR/>Anyway I'm mostly taking an extreme position here as an opposition to yours. A much more balanced article is here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/349/8/801?ijkey=db028bff9a1e056e0be15387927b176978501756&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha <BR/><BR/>The basic thing is, even though I'd say Canada's system is better hands down, that doesn't mean we can actually emulate it, which is kinda what i meant about that 5% of gdp thing.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18312224023541798450noreply@blogger.com