Healthcare costs have become a major problem in the United States. Many possible solutions have been advanced, but very little progress has been made towards settling on any given solution, and the problem continues to get worse.
The problem is often politically framed as a choice between a "nanny state", i.e. a single-payer system operated essentially by the government – an idea generally loathed by conservatives, or the more "free enterprise" system which we supposedly have now. This is actually a false dilemma, as pointed out in the following comment:
|Catfish N. Cod said, on 2008-02-15:|
Health care costs in the US are absolutely insane, it's true. But it's not a MARKET that leads to insanely high prices. If we actually had a health care MARKET then supply and demand would drive costs down -- especially with the massive influx of doctors and nurses from everywhere on Earth that want to take advantage of high US health care spending.
But the health care MARKET mostly doesn't exist. When was the last time you found out what anything about your health care cost -- BEFORE you received the product? How about a posting of what the competition was charging? An estimate of the insurance company's share?
Having a MARKET -- one of Dr. Brin's "accountability fora" -- requires some basic elements, including:
If we had these things in health care, we could have a MARKET that would drive prices down. But that's the LAST thing we have today. Instead we have:
Now, with some transparency regulation, portions of the medical system could become a MARKET, causing price wars to eliminate the exorbitant charges. The problem with a single-payer system is that, by itself, single-payer grants no transparency. I don't trust bureaucrats to negotiate behind closed doors in my name, and I don't care if they are public or private bureaucrats. I want to be able to see the cost savings, dang nabbit. Transparency forever!
- redirect template:links/smw
- 2007-04-25 Overconfidence Erases Doc Advantage by Robin Hanson
- 2004-04-21 The Profit in Pills (Alliance for Retired Americans)
- Born in the USSR: "I survived Soviet health care--barely." Includes some horrific details from North Korea This should probably be moved to a more general health care article at some point. --W.
- 2006-06-20 How to Fix Our Health Care Mess by Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown: "Bush's prescription-drug program is a boondoggle for America's fraud-ridden health-industrial complex. A better choice is available, and it's time to fight for it."
- 2005-12-07 Access To Existing Medical Treatments Could Save More Lives Than Spending To Improve The Treatments
- 2005-07-13 WikiNews: more cost-effective in Canada
- 2006-07-17 Clinton, Health Care Industry Get Cozy (related: Hillary Clinton)
- 2004-05-27 Bush's Health Care Scam by Robert Kuttner (related: George W. Bush)
- The AMA Strikes Back "AMA chapters in several states have introduced legislation to allow doctors to refuse non-critical treatment to lawyers and their spouses. This comes as a result of Tort Reform legislation that the AMA has been backing." Is this true?
- Sicko, a feature-length movie by Michael Moore
|The Rockridge Institute said:|
The next instance of a conservative frame in a question was by co-host Scott Spradling:
This question was framed as if the "true costs" of health care mean only taxes! As Spradling hinted, the implementation of universal health care will require taxes to be raised. Operating within the conservative worldview, Spradling implied that taxes are always bad. Rockridge has previously discussed the conservative view of taxes. In the conservative worldview, taxes are interpreted as a burden that the government must lighten (as opposed to the progressive view that taxes contribute to infrastructure, protection, and citizen empowerment). In any direct "answer" to the question, the conservative framing is accepted.
The question also suggested that taxes are the only "costs" of a national health care system, effectively ignoring the progressive notion that there are similar costs to society for not implementing universal health care. There are costs to the labor market, costs to doctors and nurses, costs to rural communities, and human costs. The U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world due to our lack of pre and post-natal care. We rank 33rd in life expectancy for males and 32nd in life expectancy for females. These statistics should have been presented as the "costs" of not implementing a wide-reaching health care policy for U.S. citizens.
And none of this even gets to the oft-cited fact that federal taxes don't pay for government operations but are all used to service the national debt...