I can't help but notice that health care costs shot up dramatically, and have been raising dramatically ever since, right after the Public Health Service was terminated in the late '70s. Back then we were all glad to see it go. No matter why you went there you always seemed to wait for hours in some dirty hallway to see a foreign doctor who could barely speak English tell you there was nothing wrong with you. As I look back on it now, I do see one benefit none of us realized at the time...it did help to keep the private medical providers' rates in check.
So perhaps we should bring back the Public Health Service, with all its ills -- no pun intended -- require everybody to pay "health insurance", to pay for the Public Health Service, but allow private medical providers to compete as well. One other change, allow for the government to supply health insurance at cost for all who wish to participate, instead of only relying on private health insurance providers who have to operate at a profit.
By shutting down the Public Health Service, we stopped structural competition and gave a monopoly to the private health care providers who have been sticking it to us every since.
For what it's worth, that same principle can be applied to our failing public schools, but with the player reversed. In this case, the state enjoys an almost complete monopoly, as well as a monopsony, while private education providers are virtually cut out of participating for public school dollars.
Public school vouchers would be the same type of solution by way of injecting structural competition into a state monopoly that would act to lower costs while improving results.
ex animo
davidfarrar
reformulated as Medicaid and turned over the low bidder insurance companies.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
But under the present system there is no structural competition, which is not an accident. The private medical providers are still the monopoly, as is the health insurance company. It solves nothing except adding a few more million to some body's campaign war chest.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You said a true thing, for another topic already in play.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Can I get a high-five from you then?
ex animo
davidfarrar
It's not worth a topic.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I think we all have good ideas, but good ideas, along with good intentions, even good public policy isn't enough when dealing with systemic, or structural, failure. Without structural motivation to force the changes you propose, it's all just words. The system will react to its own internal structure, even if everyone in the system is aware of the systems failures and want desperately to change them. So if we don't create a structural force outside of the medical provider industry to force change, how will you bring about significant reform?
It does no good to offer solutions if you cannot offer a change in the structural force that will bring about the changes you propose.
ex animo
davidfarrar
the only purpose in this topic is yours....so who is this "you" you are refering to...
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
All of the discussions in this topic, or the debate of health care in general. Unless you significantly change the flow of money within the system, you can have all the good ideas about how to fix the system you care to dream up, it will not produce significant change. So my point is, your plans for reform better first focus on the flow of money, and how changing the flow of money within the system will produce the changes you are proposing, or it's all just talk.
ex animo
davidfarrar
that is all I have done...see other topics for discussion of the nonprofit bank as payor funded by several sources.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
..can I impose on you, again, and ask you to give me your best, succinct, post that will illustrate this point?
ex animo
davidfarrar