John Williams wrote: > Actually, the source of the article is the author, James V. DeLong. > The publisher is The American, and the owner of the publisher is the > American Enterprise Institute.
The latter being one of the driving forces behind the failed conservative "revolution" and the miserable failure that was the W. Bush administration. DeLong's resume is impressive, but the fact that his article appears in the AEI rag is a strike against it. >> If you want to figure out how expensive health care should be, looking at >> other systems around the world should at least give a ballpark idea as >> to what we should be paying. > > In what sense "should be"? I don't see why I should choose something > just because someone else has. I should be able to make my own choices > as to what benefits me the most. Which is one of the points DeLong was > making: It's not just because someone else has it, it's because it works and it doesn't cost nearly as much. Looking at other country's health insurance is like comparison shopping; there are dozens of them that do as well or better than we do on overall quality while paying a good deal less than we do. > One way to accomplish this is for American companies who develop > useful new techniques to profit by selling related goods or services > throughout the world. > >> Personally, I think that a system that places an emphasis on >> boner drugs, reformulation of proven drugs and anti-depressants that >> don't work is in need of an overhaul in and of itself. > > I don't have a problem with any of those drugs being sold to people > who want to buy them. Just because I don't want to buy them (at the > moment), does not mean that others should be unable to buy them. We > should all have the choice to buy any of those drugs, and as many more > as people can think up. Diversity is good. I don't have a problem with the drugs, I have a problem with the priorities. Big pharma concentrates on those drugs that can make them the most money rather than those that are deemed most necessary. Sometimes those interests coincide, many times they do not. It's a glaring flaw in the free market system. > >> Finally, if the proposed reforms are really what we need to fix the >> system, why weren't they implemented when they had the ear of the >> president and a cooperative congress? > > Who is "they"? "They" referred to the proposed reforms and what I meant was that AEI and the rest of the neocons and the Bush administration had ample opportunity to address these problems when their guy and their congress was in power. As for JVD's one paragraph proposal of reforms it didn't even begin to address some of the most glaring problems such as how to cover the 50 million people that have no coverage. His proposals are vague and generally not very helpful. Take the first one; "a phaseout of employment-based health insurance in favor of other policies" Great, phase 'em out. I agree with that and said as much in a different post, but how do we phase them out? What other policies will we employ? The high deductible thing is just dumb. If people have high deductibles they will avoid being seen and what ever is wrong with them will probably get worse and cost more to treat. Instead, they should lower rates if a person gets regular checkups and encourage them to come in in cases where early treatment could prevent complications. In any case, I was less than impressed with the article. Doug _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
