PC Mode
Org Mobile Site
Forum > Discussion > Backroom (Political) >
Thread: The U.S. Health Care Debate
Lemur 18:13 08-15-2009
Here's a must-read article about how we arrived at the current system.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense.

Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.


Reply
ICantSpellDawg 20:28 08-15-2009
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Here's a must-read article about how we arrived at the current system.

But health insurance is different from every other type of insurance. Health insurance is the primary payment mechanism not just for expenses that are unexpected and large, but for nearly all health-care expenses. We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Comprehensive health insurance is such an ingrained element of our thinking, we forget that its rise to dominance is relatively recent. Modern group health insurance was introduced in 1929, and employer-based insurance began to blossom during World War II, when wage freezes prompted employers to expand other benefits as a way of attracting workers. Still, as late as 1954, only a minority of Americans had health insurance. That’s when Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. This seemingly minor tax benefit not only encouraged the spread of catastrophic insurance, but had the accidental effect of making employer-funded health insurance the most affordable option (after taxes) for financing pretty much any type of health care. There was nothing natural or inevitable about the way our system developed: employer-based, comprehensive insurance crowded out alternative methods of paying for health-care expenses only because of a poorly considered tax benefit passed half a century ago.

In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after. We all believe we need comprehensive health insurance because the cost of care—even routine care—appears too high to bear on our own. But the use of insurance to fund virtually all care is itself a major cause of health care’s high expense.

Insurance is probably the most complex, costly, and distortional method of financing any activity; that’s why it is otherwise used to fund only rare, unexpected, and large costs. Imagine sending your weekly grocery bill to an insurance clerk for review, and having the grocer reimbursed by the insurer to whom you’ve paid your share. An expensive and wasteful absurdity, no?

Is this really a big problem for our health-care system? Well, for every two doctors in the U.S., there is now one health-insurance employee—more than 470,000 in total. In 2006, it cost almost $500 per person just to administer health insurance. Much of this enormous cost would simply disappear if we paid routine and predictable health-care expenditures the way we pay for everything else—by ourselves.
I agree with that premise wholeheartedly. We should be paying out of pocket for 30 min doctors visits and annual physicals. We should reserve insurance for massive losses. The government should help us tear the insurance companies away from minor services because they are the ones elevating a minor 20 min check-up to 500 dollars for someone to touch you a few times and make small talk. Add to that a wait on average of 40 mins and 30 bucks out of pocket. Absurd. The system needs to be changed, Everyone on this site admits that.

Originally Posted by :
In designing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the government essentially adopted this comprehensive-insurance model for its own spending, and by the next year had enrolled nearly 12 percent of the population. And it is no coinci#dence that the great inflation in health-care costs began soon after.
This is an important part to remember. When a massive organization with no feeling for cost came into the mix, the system changed and warped pricing. The government spigot was turned on an the premium to get a suckle at the teet skyrocketed. After all, "there are customers with an erratic money hemmoraging insurance company (US GOVT) to assist instead of you, unless you pay more."

Thus the problem was compounded by government intervention and prices were further skewed (to the insurance companies chagrin)

Reply
Seamus Fermanagh 19:42 08-16-2009
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Here's a must-read article about how we arrived at the current system.
Wow, a decently written piece that confirms what I've thought for some time, that the US system for healthcare is the worst of BOTH extremes combined.

Reply
ICantSpellDawg 21:04 08-16-2009
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Wow, a decently written piece that confirms what I've thought for some time, that the US system for healthcare is the worst of BOTH extremes combined.

Thats funny, This is what I've been reffering to for the past week to after hearing him speak on NPR/wnyc. I like his take very much.

Reply
Marshal Murat 02:28 08-18-2009
Obama, you're no Machiavelli
Some sections selected from the article
Originally Posted by :
"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."
Originally Posted by :
In addition to exploiting one kind of "incredulity" -- disbelief that change will be better -- many conservatives shamelessly have exploited the incredulity and ignorance of poorly informed voters, who are being told that the Democratic plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly and the disabled. It is no defense of these vile tactics to observe that the Democrats have made themselves vulnerable to wild conspiracy theories by not being completely candid about healthcare.

The president and the congressional Democrats have claimed that we can cover every American, allow people who want to keep their employer-provided insurance to do so, not raise taxes on the vast majority of Americans, not ration healthcare and cut costs. This cannot possibly be true. According to the CBO, the plan in its present form would cost more than a trillion dollars over a decade. An extra hundred billion a year for real healthcare reform could be a bargain, but let's not pretend that any significant reform can be revenue-neutral.

Progressive supporters of a public option are being less than candid when they claim that a public plan will not put private insurance out of business -- when in fact their not-so-secret hope is that over time the public plan will grow into universal single-payer by putting private insurance out of business. If not, why is the left so supportive of the public plan? A supporter of single-payer, I have no problem with the goal, but instead of trying to sneak the seed of single-payer in by stealth, proponents ought to make the case on its merits. Crude pseudo-Machiavellianism based on misdirection is likely to backfire. (In "The Prince," Machiavelli -- a small-r republican who preferred the many to the elites -- says that the best leaders are those whose reputations for virtue and honesty are actually justified.)

In short, by claiming all gain and no pain -- no rationing of any kind, no middle-class tax increases, no limits on doctor choice, no price controls, no seed of single-payer -- the Democrats have created an LBJ-like "credibility gap." Just as the discrepancy between the Johnson administration's pretext for escalation in Vietnam and its actual strategic motives created a gap that was quickly filled by conspiracy theories, so the gap between the promises of the Democrats and the reality of hard trade-offs has opened a door to false and revolting conspiracy theories, like Sarah Palin's claim that under the Democratic plan her Down syndrome child might have been euthanized.


Reply
Ariovistus Maximus 04:40 08-18-2009
The Prince is a phenominal work. Like Sun Tzu's Art of War for politics. Although I wouldn't go so far as praising the methods of assassination etc, I really liked his method of comparing everything to history, to see how it will work in the future, as well as his understanding of human nature and it's role in politics.

For if, as Machiavelli says, politics is a science comparable to medicine, then history is it's pathology.

Reply
Xiahou 06:49 08-18-2009
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Wow, a decently written piece that confirms what I've thought for some time, that the US system for healthcare is the worst of BOTH extremes combined.
And the author also adds that the current reform proposals will do nothing to help. A notion I agree with.
Originally Posted by :
Would our health-care system be so outrageously expensive if each American family directly spent even half of that $1.77 million that it will contribute to health insurance and Medicare over a lifetime, instead of entrusting care to massive government and private intermediaries? Like its predecessors, the Obama administration treats additional government funding as a solution to unaffordable health care, rather than its cause. The current reform will likely expand our government’s already massive role in health-care decision-making—all just to continue the illusion that someone else is paying for our care.
Personally, I think (as I've said) that real reform would divorce health insurance from employment and then it should find a way to incentivize patients to care more about the value of their treatment. Our current medical insurance system makes about as much sense as grocery insurance or gasoline insurance.

Reply
Idaho 09:47 08-18-2009
Many of you seem more concerned about the costs of a centralised healthcare system, but utterly unconcerned with the devastating cost of not having one.

Reply
rory_20_uk 11:36 08-18-2009
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Many of you seem more concerned about the costs of a centralised healthcare system, but utterly unconcerned with the devastating cost of not having one.
Cost in which way? Economic or social?

Treating conditions acutely in hospital as opposed to the community means it costs a lot more. Even in the UK GPs working in A&E cost less than other doctors - as although their wage is higher they don't order a battery of tests on every patient. Hospitals then have to cross subsidise this, and charge more for other things, which then means the insurance companies charge more etc etc. It's just currently a bloody terrible system due to the waste that is built in.

Few countries give treatment based on assessment of use of the individual, but doing so would help everyone in the long term: more productive workers mean that the pot of money is greater for health, and hence there is more to spend on less useful areas.

For the good of humanity it's still best to sort out disease in 3rd world countries.



Reply
Idaho 12:57 08-18-2009
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Cost in which way? Economic or social?

Treating conditions acutely in hospital as opposed to the community means it costs a lot more. Even in the UK GPs working in A&E cost less than other doctors - as although their wage is higher they don't order a battery of tests on every patient. Hospitals then have to cross subsidise this, and charge more for other things, which then means the insurance companies charge more etc etc. It's just currently a bloody terrible system due to the waste that is built in.

Few countries give treatment based on assessment of use of the individual, but doing so would help everyone in the long term: more productive workers mean that the pot of money is greater for health, and hence there is more to spend on less useful areas.

For the good of humanity it's still best to sort out disease in 3rd world countries.

Social and economic costs end up being the same in the long run if our aim is to have stable, prosperous and healthy societies.

I agree about the developing world. It would be a good thing if malaria became endemic to Europe - we'd see a cure within 10 years.

Reply
rory_20_uk 14:48 08-18-2009
Cures only allow money once, treatment is money forever.

Social and economic are not the same. There is no economic reason for an exponential increase in spending on the elderly and those with other severe developmental conditions. Whereas only a few years ago they'd die, we'd all have a cry and get on with it, now we can keep 'em sort of alive for in some cases decades costing in some cases over £1,000 a week when all their medication and services are taken into account.

I do not think we are more prosperous as a result and certainly the average health has declined as a result of this. Increasingly it is obvious we can't afford it, but no politician has the balls to do any more than tinker with the edges of the problem and feel grateful that their pension is index linked - so inflation proof.



Reply
Up
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO