Tweet
I recognize that US healthcare costs are the limiting factor to availability for those in need, as well as determining the quality of care received. You can get basic care through the providers on your insurance, or you can get the absolute best by paying up and going to specialists. The population of the world's best specialists are concentrated in the US. Why? Because they get paid the most for their top of the line services. This is an effect of the wealth structure and system that is currently in place. These specialists may not have the most clients, but the clients that they do have recognize the quality of care and pay top dollar for it. The specialist's knowledge and skill is rewarded with higher wages and a better working environment. The fact that these specialists come from all around the world to practice in the US is a testament to the effectiveness of the current market-based system to attract and retain talent. This, in turn, helps the reputation of all of the US physicians and the trickle down effects are felt by all specialists in the US, not just the #1 specialist in each specialty. This fact of the best practitioners and stellar reputation is being under-appreciated with the new Act.
I keep hearing figures of "30 million" uninsured. So, that is less than 1 in 10 Americans... And that does not mean that 1 in 10 is unhealthy and requires healthcare. Of the 1 in that 1 in 10, there is another statistic... how many are sick AND uninsured? The act offers that statistic of a statistic the opportunity to get healthcare and have the rest of America pay for it. Great for that person! I mean it; it is morally good to care for others that cannot care for themselves. Be mindful of my caveat, because there is a lot of room for abuse. People will take advantage of the goodness of others and feign ineptitude to shirk responsibility.
My theory (qualitative analysis) is that this number of 1 in 10 is being used to extrapolate costs going into the future. But, the statistics will skew as the Act opens the possibility for more participants in the government plan. In a matter of a few years, the people who are on the government plan will swell, and the costs of the Act will, like most other government plans, increase in greater proportion than the participants.
My theory is that this will cost much more than what any figure today predicts. These costs are going to be passed onto the taxpayers, and this tax will increase at a rate less than the amount needed to cover the increasing costs. It will be another government system gone wrong. With costs eventually becoming greater than the tax income. But, not to worry, we'll just bundle the shortfall into some bonds and sell them to another country at an inflated credit rating. Then pay the interest on those bonds with the issuance of more bonds. I can't wait to see what kind of healthcare we get then.
My theory also portends an exodus of talent. With a system that levels the costs that can be charged for procedures, why would a #1 specialist want to practice in an environment where he/she cannot reap the #1 rewards?
Another theory I have suggests that every healthcare provider will now have to get their own lobbyist. Plastic surgeons will have to lobby to increase the amount they can legally charge for double D's. Maxillofacial surgeons will have to lobby for dental implant costs. And this will go on and on. The whole system will become a popularity and money game. If you are a doctor in the field and are not represented by a lobbyist that has connections and is well funded, well sorry, but your kids have to go to public school too.
Is there a better way to fix the costs and availability of healthcare in the US without making it a government entity? Yes, there has to be. What is being offered is a fast and cheap way out of the problem. It is not a well thought out plan. It will not reduce costs over time. It will reduce talent. It will increase corruption.
One of the principles of which this country was founded upon was LESS GOVERNMENT. If anyone thinks that the Declaration of Independence was written because a few land owners didn't want to pay taxes, then you don't know history. It goes much deeper than that. Oppression from large government, whose dictates violated the inalienable rights of the people for which is was supposed to serve, led to the American Revolution.
As they say, history has a way of repeating itself.
I keep hearing figures of "30 million" uninsured. So, that is less than 1 in 10 Americans... And that does not mean that 1 in 10 is unhealthy and requires healthcare. Of the 1 in that 1 in 10, there is another statistic... how many are sick AND uninsured? The act offers that statistic of a statistic the opportunity to get healthcare and have the rest of America pay for it. Great for that person! I mean it; it is morally good to care for others that cannot care for themselves. Be mindful of my caveat, because there is a lot of room for abuse. People will take advantage of the goodness of others and feign ineptitude to shirk responsibility.
My theory (qualitative analysis) is that this number of 1 in 10 is being used to extrapolate costs going into the future. But, the statistics will skew as the Act opens the possibility for more participants in the government plan. In a matter of a few years, the people who are on the government plan will swell, and the costs of the Act will, like most other government plans, increase in greater proportion than the participants.
My theory is that this will cost much more than what any figure today predicts. These costs are going to be passed onto the taxpayers, and this tax will increase at a rate less than the amount needed to cover the increasing costs. It will be another government system gone wrong. With costs eventually becoming greater than the tax income. But, not to worry, we'll just bundle the shortfall into some bonds and sell them to another country at an inflated credit rating. Then pay the interest on those bonds with the issuance of more bonds. I can't wait to see what kind of healthcare we get then.
My theory also portends an exodus of talent. With a system that levels the costs that can be charged for procedures, why would a #1 specialist want to practice in an environment where he/she cannot reap the #1 rewards?
Another theory I have suggests that every healthcare provider will now have to get their own lobbyist. Plastic surgeons will have to lobby to increase the amount they can legally charge for double D's. Maxillofacial surgeons will have to lobby for dental implant costs. And this will go on and on. The whole system will become a popularity and money game. If you are a doctor in the field and are not represented by a lobbyist that has connections and is well funded, well sorry, but your kids have to go to public school too.
Is there a better way to fix the costs and availability of healthcare in the US without making it a government entity? Yes, there has to be. What is being offered is a fast and cheap way out of the problem. It is not a well thought out plan. It will not reduce costs over time. It will reduce talent. It will increase corruption.
One of the principles of which this country was founded upon was LESS GOVERNMENT. If anyone thinks that the Declaration of Independence was written because a few land owners didn't want to pay taxes, then you don't know history. It goes much deeper than that. Oppression from large government, whose dictates violated the inalienable rights of the people for which is was supposed to serve, led to the American Revolution.
As they say, history has a way of repeating itself.
Comment