Visitor Comments
On Cato's recent NY Times article
An interesting and purely colloquial story: My sister is a physical therapist. She noted to me a year or so ago that her medicaid patients who get their therapy for free do not heal as quickly from the same injuries as her patients who pay cash for their appointments. Has anyone done research on this?
- posted by Nicole Williams
- March 12, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
- Permalink
The blogger in question ("Denialist") argues that "universal" health care would not result in more people admitted to hospitals. And he's right: the hospitals would decay because "universal" health care would only cover variable, but not fixed, costs, like in Canada. Problem solved: hospitals collapse - fewer patients admitted.
"Denialist" also subscribes to the myth that when you have health insurance, you undergo some magical transformation that turns you into a responsible patient who seeks out more appropriate and timely care than the uninsured. This is a gross exaggeration, to put it mildly, as I discuss in my paper on California's health reform, "California Health Care Deforminator: Model ABX1 1," available at www.pacificresearch.org.
"Denialist" also traffics the nonsense that health plans make money by earning premiums and then simply denying care - which is utter nonsense. Think about it: health insurance is voluntary in the U.S. (except in Massachusetts), so if they paid no claims, we would not demand health insurance from our employers.
Also, health care in America accounts for about 17% of GDP. The next highest spender is Switzerland, at about 13% of GDP. Let's assume that other countries, like Switzerland, have no for-profit enterprises in health care (which is obviously not true: Switzerland is home to some very well established pharmaceutical companies. Many countries also have for-profit insurers, hospitals, and clinics, as well as doctors who are independent businessmen, like in the U.S.) Under the assumption, you'd be saying that at least 30% (5%/17%) of all U.S. health spending goes to profits!
"Denialist" also subscribes to the myth that when you have health insurance, you undergo some magical transformation that turns you into a responsible patient who seeks out more appropriate and timely care than the uninsured. This is a gross exaggeration, to put it mildly, as I discuss in my paper on California's health reform, "California Health Care Deforminator: Model ABX1 1," available at www.pacificresearch.org.
"Denialist" also traffics the nonsense that health plans make money by earning premiums and then simply denying care - which is utter nonsense. Think about it: health insurance is voluntary in the U.S. (except in Massachusetts), so if they paid no claims, we would not demand health insurance from our employers.
Also, health care in America accounts for about 17% of GDP. The next highest spender is Switzerland, at about 13% of GDP. Let's assume that other countries, like Switzerland, have no for-profit enterprises in health care (which is obviously not true: Switzerland is home to some very well established pharmaceutical companies. Many countries also have for-profit insurers, hospitals, and clinics, as well as doctors who are independent businessmen, like in the U.S.) Under the assumption, you'd be saying that at least 30% (5%/17%) of all U.S. health spending goes to profits!
- posted by John R. Graham
- March 11, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
- Permalink
Post Your Comment Here
| SPN Headquarters: 2020 North 14th Street Ste 250 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 243-1655 | West Coast Office: PO Box 5208 Richmond, CA 94805 Phone: (510) 965-9700 |
