Interesting story in today’s New York Times on Tom Daschle’s call for “Healthcare House Parties.”
In typical New York Times fashion, the event they chose as an example was peopled mostly by Obama campaign volunteers (including one person who works at the NIH and another who is “active in women’s health advocacy”). So not your typical slice of America.
Nevertheless, some interesting tidbits.
For example, here’s what one party member had to say about a government-sponsored plan, “similar to Medicare,” that would compete with private insurance companies -- “A public insurance plan would not take anything away. It just adds another option.”
Options are good. But would a government plan compete fairly? Or would it ultimately drive private plans out of business by adopting, what in the free market world would be referred to as, a loss-leader strategy? And we all know what happens once that happens. A government run one-payer system that puts cost before care. Options are good. Naïvité is not.
And what might such a system cost? According to the Times story, “The Obama transition team did not ask people how a new health care system should be financed, but several people here said that individuals and businesses should have to pay a small health care tax — some preferred to call it a ‘contribution’ — so that everyone could be covered.”
That’s nice. A contribution. Like buying Girl Scout cookies. Well, not quite. Consider the facts:
In the United Kingdom, British citizens pay 11 to 12 percent of their weekly income to finance the country’s healthcare system. And in Canada about a fifth of taxes collected in Canada go toward funding the country’s health system. That's a lot of Thin Mints -- more than many Americans are willing to swallow.
In a recent poll of over a thousand 18 to 24 year-old Americans – the so-called “millennial” generation -- conducted by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (the public policy home of drugwonks.com), 62% said they would not support any reforms that could increase physician wait times or restrict access to new medical treatments. Nearly two-thirds said they would not support additional government interference in the doctor-patient decision-making process.
Precisely the result of government healthcare.
Oh, and a majority (51 percent) were not in support of any health care reforms that could raise their personal tax burden.
The Times reports that, The Obama transition team asked for ‘particularly poignant stories to highlight the need for health care reform,’ and such stories were abundant at the round table here.”
But can we afford healthcare reform by anecdote?
In typical New York Times fashion, the event they chose as an example was peopled mostly by Obama campaign volunteers (including one person who works at the NIH and another who is “active in women’s health advocacy”). So not your typical slice of America.
Nevertheless, some interesting tidbits.
For example, here’s what one party member had to say about a government-sponsored plan, “similar to Medicare,” that would compete with private insurance companies -- “A public insurance plan would not take anything away. It just adds another option.”
Options are good. But would a government plan compete fairly? Or would it ultimately drive private plans out of business by adopting, what in the free market world would be referred to as, a loss-leader strategy? And we all know what happens once that happens. A government run one-payer system that puts cost before care. Options are good. Naïvité is not.
And what might such a system cost? According to the Times story, “The Obama transition team did not ask people how a new health care system should be financed, but several people here said that individuals and businesses should have to pay a small health care tax — some preferred to call it a ‘contribution’ — so that everyone could be covered.”
That’s nice. A contribution. Like buying Girl Scout cookies. Well, not quite. Consider the facts:
In the United Kingdom, British citizens pay 11 to 12 percent of their weekly income to finance the country’s healthcare system. And in Canada about a fifth of taxes collected in Canada go toward funding the country’s health system. That's a lot of Thin Mints -- more than many Americans are willing to swallow.
In a recent poll of over a thousand 18 to 24 year-old Americans – the so-called “millennial” generation -- conducted by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (the public policy home of drugwonks.com), 62% said they would not support any reforms that could increase physician wait times or restrict access to new medical treatments. Nearly two-thirds said they would not support additional government interference in the doctor-patient decision-making process.
Precisely the result of government healthcare.
Oh, and a majority (51 percent) were not in support of any health care reforms that could raise their personal tax burden.
The Times reports that, The Obama transition team asked for ‘particularly poignant stories to highlight the need for health care reform,’ and such stories were abundant at the round table here.”
But can we afford healthcare reform by anecdote?
