"strabo" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snipped
We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.
Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to
fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame
all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain.
You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You
have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the
minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making
profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to
the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system
to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the
other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will
work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and
none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they
could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations.
But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the
government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries
can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy.
We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than
the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can
have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse.
So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that
choice
is a no-brainer.


Keep it simple.

Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920
with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the
information needed to understand why costs are up.

my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder...


If you reply I expect to see the money differences.

If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest
house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be
be customer safety, technology and regulations.

Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety,
better technology, and tighter regulations.

You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone
age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who
would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference
between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part
about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more
important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives
that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into
something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity.

It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot
cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will
you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money?
If not, then how much are you willing to pay?

--
Ed Huntress