Dan McLaughlin at CBS News has an excellent opinion/analysis of the current health care “debate”.  Here’s a few pastes, but read the whole thing:

Let’s review the options. The Democrats’ main argument is that restructuring the entire health care sector will reduce the nation’s total (public and private) outlay for health care. When you boil it down, though, there are only three variables you can cut: reduce the amount of medical care provided; reduce what providers of medical care earn for their products and services; and reduce intermediary costs. All are problematic.

I. Less Medical Care

One argument advanced by proponents of the various plans is that costs would be reduced by providing more care, because preventative care would prevent more expensive care from being needed… .Back on Earth, a rigorous study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, “if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success,” the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country’s total medical bill by 162 percent. That’s because prevention applied to large populations is very expensive, as shown by another report Elmendorf cites, a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

II. Medical Care For Less Cost

The issue of shortages brings us to the problem with the second option: rather than reducing the amount of care provided, reduce the amount paid to the people who provide it: doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Certainly on the Left there is a fair amount of sentiment for making it less profitable to provide care. But there is really no getting around the basics of supply and demand: if we make it less profitable to become a doctor, we will end up with fewer doctors.

III. Cutting Out The Middleman

The elephant in the waiting room is the other big cost driver of intermediaries besides the scope of coverage and the cost of having shareholders and executives: lawsuits. Precise figures are again a subject of intense dispute, but a goodly chunk of what drives the amount of `unnecessary’ care provided, the cost of providing services and the cost of intermediaries is the need to protect against and pay for the cost of medical malpractice and denial of coverage litigation. None of the Democratic proposals, however, seek to make any practical inroads against this source of costs. Replacing a private system with a public one could arguably do so if the trial bar is effectively precluded from bringing against the government many of the kinds of lawsuits now used against private insurers – but aren’t liberals in favor of keeping those kinds of suits viable? And how likely is it that in the long run they won’t provide other mechanisms to keep one of their vital constituencies in business?

There will be no cost savings. There’s no sense in pretending otherwise.

The whole purpose of health care reform is to increase government control of the majority by an elite few.  This elite few’s power and income will be vastly enriched by this health care coup d’e'tat – if the elite can pull it off.  But make no mistake – that is, stop pretending otherwise – it has nothing to do with improving the lives of the American people.  We do need to gear up for a large increase in demand for health care in America, because of the aging of America.  If a higher percentage of the population is old we should expect that a higher percentage of GDP will be spent on health care.  To accommodate this, we need to augment the total supply of health care.  Price always rations whatever available supply there is.  We don’t need government elites to ration it based on their political whim rather than through price. If an increased supply is encouraged by reducing lawsuits and building more hospitals and medical schools, we can expect lower prices (than otherwise) with the increased supply of practitioners…it’s really that simple.

2 Comments on “Healthcare cost saving myth”

  • Greetings! Very useful advice within this article! It’s the little changes which will make the
    most significant changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!

  • You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find
    this topic to be actually something which I
    think I would never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
    I am looking forward for your next post, I’ll try to get the hang of it!

Leave a Comment