Some good stuff from Coyote Blog today:
We can spend the money you may have better than you can. We can also spend the money you don't have better than you can.
And this bit on the politicization of health care in a universal system:
...But Kaus is correct that if some high-powered and well-funded interest group gets behind a certain procedure, cost-effective or not, the government overlords of the program will likely approve it. As a result, for example, no potential treatment for breast cancer will ever be denied given the proven strength of women’s groups lobbying for breast cancer treatment (already, breast cancer research is hugely over-funded vs. other diseases given its mortality, due in large part to this powerful lobbying).
But it is not one dynamic or the other. Both will exist. There will be huge pressures to cut back somewhere, as costs skyrocket. And there will be huge pressure from certain interest groups to fund treatment for certain diseases in unlimited amounts. The result will not be, as Kaus posits, that everything will be funded more than it is today — the result will be that certain procedures and conditions with strong lobbying and political muscle will get funded more, with the difference being made up from cutting funding for conditions and procedures without a well-organized lobby.
Access to longer be determined by money, but by political pull.
The obvious downside will be further distortion and inefficiency of the health care system, and as I commented on Warren's blog, it is even worse than it appears. Other specialtieswill have to compete in the realm of lobbying to prevent losing their piece of the pie to a more vocal group, essentially wasting vast sums of money on infighting. Politicians will gain even more power by playing gatekeeper of resources to the highest bidder. We've already seen political contributions give an outstanding return on investment in all other areas, and health care will be no different.
"Facts are the enemy of truth."
I see this comment played out daily in any number of fields. Last year, a Dutch study, showed that a smokers life time medical expenses are lower than a nonsmoker due to earlier death. While I in no way wish to promote smoking we see the antismoking lobby pushing for ever higher taxes, being spent on nonmedical projects, that are controlled by politicians.
When the HPV vaccine was approved we saw an immediate push by the drug company for a mandate and expansion of the original sample size to include both older and younger women. Bypassing the medical community they went straight to the politicians to achieve this mandate with the promise of eliminating a low risk cancer in the US. This vaccine also does not in any way eliminate the need for yearly PAP smears or exams. In the original pricing strategy a physician would loose money with every vaccination.
Do I want to see anyone smoke? No. Do I want anyone to suffer the ravages of cancer, of any type? No. Do I believe the medical community is being manipulated to achieve financial and political gain by a few companies and politicians? Yes.
The facts are we need to suck one trillion dollars out of our medical system, and improve outcomes, just to match the level of 36 other countries that rank above us in this area.
Steve Lucas
Posted by: Steve Lucas | 04/18/2009 at 06:48 AM
Do you have any better plan than president Obama's idea. His idea for our health care system is good to try nuch better than what the current health care system is providing. All of those who have a great idea that is better than his plans can make a difference. I think all of you should spill out what is your own plan.
Posted by: buy soma | 09/08/2009 at 10:12 AM