tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post6294790223182610769..comments2024-03-22T03:25:26.405-04:00Comments on WAG: The catch-22 for opponents of health care reform: more health insurance economicswaghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-27667218998822136872010-02-28T22:40:20.550-05:002010-02-28T22:40:20.550-05:00Is your argument then that government should fund ...Is your argument then that government should fund unlimited health care for everyone? Because that's what it means to not ration.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-41243431330743202862010-02-27T11:12:13.976-05:002010-02-27T11:12:13.976-05:00Speaking as one who has elderly relatives who deal...Speaking as one who has elderly relatives who deal with the current US system and the NHS in the UK, I can assure you that your arguments founder on the rocks of reality. Government "controlling costs" in health care=government rationing of access to health care. Government health care is all about government and not at all about health care.<br /><br />If you want to create a more equitable health care system in the US, extend the deductability of health care costs to individuals as it is now with corporations. <br /><br />As is usually the case, if you think the problems government creates are bad, wait till you see their solutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-76705992020849193392010-01-02T02:29:28.310-05:002010-01-02T02:29:28.310-05:00In response to your analysis of WHY conservatives ...In response to your analysis of WHY conservatives are (well, WERE) frightened of the "government takover," I think that their fears are not based on some coherent analysis of businesses having to adapt. I think it is an ideological position that ANYTHING done by the government is bad (except prohibiting abortions and gay marriage, or course). They probably dont analyze the impact on insurance companies, but instead just look at the single issue and think government=bad.CLKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-43668622349277335072009-10-01T15:49:10.066-04:002009-10-01T15:49:10.066-04:00Good points. I've always wondered why health ...Good points. I've always wondered why health insurance companies don't do more to keep costs down - i.e. pressuring medical device makers to invent lower-cost equipment. I've got two theories. One is that the experience with negative responses to HMOs convinced them that their customers really just want unlimited care, and will pay ever-increasing premiums to get it. The other is that they actually don't pay a good share of the truly egregious costs since they can rescind a portion of the policies or fight not to cover certain treatments.waghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07220188306371171380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4633518921894589777.post-29835195999168436892009-10-01T14:17:28.192-04:002009-10-01T14:17:28.192-04:00This is a strong analysis, to which I would add on...This is a strong analysis, to which I would add only one comment: most insurance pays health care providers for the wrong thing -- procedures rather than results. More procedures = more money for the doctor. It's possible to pay differently, and get better results for less money. Here's a great story showing how paying more for health care doesn't mean we get better results:<br /><br />http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande<br /><br />Rod BrownAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com