I've been reading articles about health care reform this last weekend and thought I'd forward some of the good ones I found. The key issue is whether to have a "public option" and here are some PRO articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
http://online.wsj.com/article/
and here are some CON articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
Anyway, thought you might enjoy reading these as well to get informed about this very important current issue. I personally find the CON articles more persuasive although maybe that is at least partly because I work in an industry that stands to be profoundly changed by
any new healthcare reform (or as Al Gore quoted in his movie about climate change: "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding it" --- maybe that's me to some extent although I think I'm being objective here).
But basically the CON argument is that the public option would have unfair advantages over private insurance plans (implicit government backing at first, later direct tax subsidies likely) and would eventually squeeze out other plans and become essentially a single payer system which would have monopoly bargaining power for health care services and drugs. This will therefore cause prices for health care services and drugs to be cut to the bone. On the surface this seems like a good thing --- costs would be lowered and more people could be covered. But this would very adversely affect long term innovation (new drug research, etc.) and the level of care --- there would be fewer doctors (smart people would tend to go into other professions that paid more, etc.) and fewer new medical breakthroughs since you would be less likely to recoup large upfront R&D costs.
Basically, we would be trading quality for quantity --- everyone would be covered, but the the quality would go down. Probably that is the better outcome morally --- better to have everyone at least have basic health care coverage rather than only some having top notch care, but that is probably the choice we face. And if you think care in countries with national health care is so great, you should honestly look at Canada as an example. Hehsun's family has often complained to us that it is hard to see doctors there and they often try a string of cheaper alternatives before really addressing your core problem --- they have to triage care and make you wait a long time before you can have an appointment whereas here, if you have coverage and pay your co-pay you can be seen within a day or so.
And depending on how you look at it, it really isn’t true that health care is worse in America. You can’t just somehow compare the “average health” of Americans and Europeans, say, but you need to be comparing “apples to apples”. Americans are generally unhealthier (overweight,
bad eating habits, etc.) and this needs to be considered when comparing. An economics blog by Greg Mankiw that I read argues that the real fair comparison would be, say, people with similar attributes who both suffer from the same disease (say some kind of cancer) — in which country is survivability better? In this regard, survivability is better in America and by this measure American health care is better.
Also, at least for drug research (and other medical products and services that can be sold across borders), the US has essentially been subsidizing the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world has national health insurance and essentially dictates drug prices, so the US market is the only one where R&D costs can be recouped (since it is the most market based of them all). I've seen estimates that over 50% of drug R&D costs are borne by the US. If the US goes to a national plan, this core source of recouping R&D costs will be gone. So I think one maybe unintended consequence of national health care in America could be that costs will rise in the rest of the world to compensate at least somewhat. That’s probably a good thing — time for the rest of the world to subsidize OUR health care (or at least pay their fair share)! Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out. I'd be curious what you all think.
No comments:
Post a Comment