At 10:19 AM -0500 10/2/09, Charles Bennett wrote:
><<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs>
Well, that article pretty much convinced me that
Obama/Daschle is probably on the right path. Because if their
opponents are THAT wrongheaded, they must be on to something.
>The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It
>produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.
>Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as
>a cost problem instead of a growth industry.
If the health care industry is a growth industry in the US,
there is something pretty wrong. Health care has very low elasticity
of demand -- you tend to want the same health services regardless of
price or supply. If you are having heart problems, you want it fixed,
even if the price is going to cripple you financially (because being
crippled financially is better than being dead). And you don't
suddenly decide to have that knee reconstruction because it is going
cheap. In large part, the low elasticity of demand is because, while
the choice to buy a new TV is just about money, health care generally
involves a whole bunch of other costs (changes to lifestyle, time
incapacitated, quality of life, etc) that are non-monetary.
So, basically, you don't increase the growth in health care
by getting new consumers.
So the growth has to come from somewhere. It can't come from
widening access -- the only way to widen access is, in any case,
cheaper services, and the whole article is arguing against an
increased emphasis on routine cheaper services, and arguing for more
use of expensive and experimental services. So the only way you can
get growth in services, if you aren't broadening the patient base,
has to come from charging individual patients more.
Now, considering the big problem with the US system is lack
of access to services, and difficulty in people affording expensive
health care, the article would appear to be arguing that it is OK if
access to system is reduced, as long as those involved in it are
making more money.
So, if these are Daschle and Obama's enemies, they must be
doing something right.
Cheers
David
PS yeah, Chuck, you are just completely, objectively, wrong on the
whole US vs UK thing. Admit it like a man. The UK is regarded as a
disaster by people comparing it to other nations with free national
health care systems, but the US is still worse than all of those.
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
