Originally Posted By: the G-man

It's one thing to believe the U.S. system can be improved. It's quite another, and dangerous, to automatically assume that the socialized systems would be better.


 Originally Posted By: The New Adventures of Old PJP
how would you improve it? How would you help people that can't get care get it? How about middle class america that has insurance and yet still has to pay a big chunk of change on top of what is "covered".


First off, get people to accurately and fairly define the real problem and the extent of it. Too much of the coverage you see is agenda based or anecdotal and falls into the standard style of most mainstream media coverage, namely, a lot of hysteria and a complete ignorance of how economics actually works.

For example, you hear a lot about how many people are uninsured in America, but very little about how many of those people are, for example, young Americans who simply choose not to purchase health insurance and, quite frankly, may not need much-if any-coverage.

In addition, according to Gallup, eighty-one percent of Americans rate their personal health as good or excellent and seventy-seven percent are satisifed with the quality of their health care. Yet, despite that, the majority of Americans think a system that provides such good health care needs to be fixed. That's an interesting dichotomy and could mean that most of the "crisis" is, in fact, media or agenda-driven.

Let's find out how much of a problem that really is or isn't. Define the problem before trying to create the solution.

After that, we need to figure out how much of the problem is actually caused by the government itself in the first place. For example, in some states, its reported that government regulations are driving the cost of health insurance way up:
  • Some of the benefits companies have been forced to cover include: in vitro fertilization, morbid obesity treatment, and lockjaw disorders. Some states require coverage of specialists including acupuncturists, pastoral counselors, marriage therapists, and massage therapists. Additionally, several states have imposed so-called "slacker mandates" allowing parents to keep grown children on their health-care policy until the age of 30. . . .

    The report that Wieske co-authored estimated that such mandates can add anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent to the price tag of a health insurance policy, depending on the state and the type of mandate. It's no coincidence that New York, one of the most regulated states, is also among the most expensive.


With this in mind, and given my general distaste for expanding government in any social or economica area, I'd look at how to make private systems more efficient. In this regard, at least one democrat candidate for president agreed:
  • Chris Dodd ...proposed a “Universal HealthMart”, a system of comprehensive plans that would entitle every American to the same benefits and types of plans as Members of Congress. In John Edwards’ March 2007 proposal, he similarly argued that businesses have a responsibility to provide their employees with a “comprehensive health plan”. Mr. Edwards even stated that “over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach”. These proposals incorrectly think that foreign programs for universal care are “comprehensive.” In fact many cannot afford to provide dental and vision care, or claim that these services are covered but then have severe difficulty providing them. Mimic their approach in America, and we will see the same results.


And, in fact, in countries with government-run health care, the countries with better care seem to be the ones that have less government intrusion, and more private industry involvement, than Canada and England:
  • A few universal health care systems do manage to provide high-quality, comprehensive benefits, but these systems are not single payer. They have competing insurance funds and they are more expensive to operate compared to their single payer counterparts, but the results are better. It was recently reported that the survival rates for stomach cancer are twice as poor as in the UK as in Germany.


Finally, in terms of where government involvement is needed, as noted above, I'd want to see them doing whatever is necessary to root out waste, fraud, political favoritism and the usual pork and corruption that tends to make anything more expensive and less efficient (the kind of thing Eliot Spitzer seemed to do a good job of when he was Attorney General and not busy fucking hookers).

So, in short, I'd look at the problem more carefully, not assume government is the solution and instead, examine how to improve private industry since, historically, it ends up working better in the long run.

It might not solve all the problems but it sure would help reduce them.