Walmart and Unions agree!

[Brat]

... A brewing controversy in Japan is that many expensive cancer treatments are not available because the government has decided the cost benefit isn't worth it.

Here is where tough choices need to be made. The taxpayer can't do it all. Oregon had a state program that funded treatments ranked on the basis of cost benefit and the Feds rejected it. A program that offered treatment based on the cost benefit ratio up to a certain limit, then a catastrophic provision might balance it out. Individuals could self-insure if they wished for the for the balance. My concern about HSAs it the huge portion of the population who don't get that, the insurance industry should be free to offer guaranteed renewable policies for that population.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Somewhere in the mushy center is a middle ground that will not completely satisfy anyone, but is probably the best alternative.

3 yrs, you are right on! That is a fantastic article and brings to reality some of the LONG TERM consequences of universal care. (Notice it took about 40 years for Japan's system to start "breaking"). Just imagine, poor cancer care for a rapidly aging nation (America) with 60% of it's people falling into the category of being obese.

Actually, I think we are pretty close to that middle ground right now, as people who have had very rich benefits in the past are now starting to have to have higher deductibles or have to pay extra for guaranteed issue of coverage, etc...and they are not liking it! The laws of economics say that the market will not continually spiral out of control to the point where no one can afford coverage, because at some point the costs of care will have to flatten out or hospitals and other providers will run themselvels out of business. I'll have to do some research on this, but I am pretty sure that costs have already begun to flatten a bit over the last couple of years.

The biggest problem we have right now in our country is the uninsured market, which actually is probably quite a bit smaller than what the statistics say, since a large portion of the uninsured market is people who are in a transitional state of temporarily having no coverage due to being in between jobs, etc..and another large chunk are actually people who choose to remain uninsured, even though they can afford it. If we can just get these numbers down, and I prefer to do it through capitalistic methods such as tax incentives or penalites, I think we will have a nice, happy medium. I'm still not sure what the best way to handle the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid is, but maybe if the gov't offered Medicaid on a sliding scale instead of having an eligibility cutoff point, we could eliminate some of the uninsured that fall into that category.

Right now, we've got a situation where demand is outpacing supply, so maybe some supply side economics could be helpful as well...such as, perhaps, gov't programs to help fund education for providers?..

 

[mykidslovedogs]

you can' tell me that all of the sudden the cost of healthcare went up - WRONG.

The year 2000 was a turning point. The economy was beginning to go into recession and then 9/11 happened in 01. During that time, Medicaid enrollment rose sharply, which resulted in cost-shifting to the private sector. Overall healthcare costs led by prescription drugs and hospital costs also grew significantly over this time period, which further exacerbated the problem, so it was a combination of issues that caused the drastic rise in health insurance premiums.