Kay Bailey's health care finance confusion
What exactly is Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's political appeal?
She has never seemed to me to have a particularly good grasp of even basic issues. But I never dreamed that she actually supported universal health insurance even while mimicking the GOP party line against such a mandate all these years.
Uwe Reinhardt provides the Senate subcommittee context for Hutchinson's revelation:
[Hutchison] was proposing that women should not have to decide between spending $250 of their own money to get a mammogram or go without it, and that the key here is to get someone else — either public or private health insurance — to pay for it.
I cannot recall a clearer statement of unreserved support for universal and comprehensive health insurance for America and a more straightforward definition of rationing health care.
I am sure that she would extend her remarkable dictum on rationing to cover routine screening for other cancers as well — e.g., to colonoscopies for colon cancer, to P.S.A. tests and biopsies for prostate cancer or to regular examinations for thyroid cancer.
Furthermore, I would assume that her concern for timely medical attention extends even beyond cancer to the prevention of all serious illnesses — e.g., the control of blood pressure for Americans with hypertension through drug therapy or the prevention of diabetes.
In a nutshell, whether she realized it or not, hers is a clear clarion call for comprehensive, universal health insurance in America.
I don't agree with Senator Hutchison's viewpoint regarding universal coverage. However, I understand it and acknowledge that it's not an unreasonable position. I just don't think it's the best way to control the cost of health care services and products.
But why isn't she honest about her true position?
The headline says it all
The fundamental problem with the American health care finance system is that reliance on tax-deductible, employer-based health insurance and government subsidized insurance (such as Medicaid, Medicare) created a culture since WWII in which consumers of health care at the point of delivery expect to pay none (or only a small fraction) of the cost of that health care.
That culture has led to highly inefficient consumption of health care services and product. Some folks consume too much because they have no financial incentive to be prudent about their purchases, while many others who really need services and products go without.
So, reforming the system should start with changing the culture, right?
So much for that:
US wealthy should pay for health care overhaul, poll finds
Data could boost House plan to tax top-tier earners
WASHINGTON - Americans don’t want to shoulder the cost of President Obama’s health care overhaul themselves. They think the rich should pay for it.
That’s the finding from a new Associated Press poll, and it could be a boost for House Democrats, whose plan approved this month proposed taxing upper-income people to fund their sweeping remake of the medical system. . . .
Thus, rather than true reform, Congress simply debates transferring payments from one group to another. Reminds me of the observation that the late Milton Friedman used to make about spending money:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you're doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I'm not so careful about the content of the present, but I'm very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else's money on myself. And if I spend somebody else's money on myself, then I'm sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else's money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else's money on somebody else, I'm not concerned about how much it is, and I'm not concerned about what I get.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar