Saturday, August 16, 2003
MORE ON THE "NATIONAL PAYER" SYSTEM...
In the PNHP paper(PDF) the authors state "Four principles shape our vision of reform". They are:
1. Access to comprehensive health care is a human right. It is the responsibility of society, through its government to assure this right. Coverage should not be tied to employment. Private insurance firms' past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care.
2. The right to choose and change one's physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional.
3. Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. The U.S. already spends enought to provide comprehensive care to all Americans with no increase in total costs. However, the vast health care resources now squandered on bureaucracy (mostly due to efforts to divert costs to other payers or on to patients themselves), profits, marketing, and useless or even harmful medical interventions must be shifted to needed care.
4. In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decisions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats
Lets take a look at these:
Access to comprehensive care is a human right To society this is an unsettled question. "Human rights" are commonly divided into "negative" rights (Congress shall make no law....) which prevent the government from infringing on one's personal freedom, these usually do not impose a cost on other members of a community, and "positive rights" which state that one has a "right" to something (food, housing, ect..). These rights impose a cost on other members of society. Certainly health care would be a "positive right". As such granting it would be subject to scrutiny. As for the "comprehensive"-ness of coverage, this is what could make or break the system. I agree that a catastrophic medical illness shouldn't bankrupt anybody. The reason that people insure their houses and cars is to prepare for the unexpected. But those types of insurance don't pay for gas or a new coat of paint. Those are paid for by the driver/homeowner, and they know of those costs. Patients today have no idea the true cost of their healthcare. This plan would eliminate co-pays so every day would be free doctorin'.
Coverage should not be tied to employment No disagreement here. Why don't we give individual's the same tax benefits for purchasing health insurance that businesses do.
Private insurance firms past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care As if the government has done better with Medicare/Medicaid/VA systems. This plan would eliminate all forms of private insurance. No competition for the government.
The right to choose and change one's physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional. No argument here.
Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. Medical innovation requires risk taking and there should be the potential of payoff if the innovation is successful. This is why the drug and medical device industries in America are the worlds finest. If you want the best and brightest to persue medicine, you have to insure that they will make a good living.
The U.S. already spends enought to provide comprehensive care to all Americans with no increase in total costs Really? Show me the figures. Every time someone states that elimination of "bureaucracy" can pay for everything else, look out.
In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decsions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats This could be a set up for a tyranny of the majority. The health policy of the nation could change with the politacal landscape. Abortion and euthanasia could be subjected to political or economic whim. The personal medical decisions would be, for the most part, be restriced by policies at the national level under a central system.
I encourage all to "read the whole thing" as they say. As always i invite your comments.
|
In the PNHP paper(PDF) the authors state "Four principles shape our vision of reform". They are:
1. Access to comprehensive health care is a human right. It is the responsibility of society, through its government to assure this right. Coverage should not be tied to employment. Private insurance firms' past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care.
2. The right to choose and change one's physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional.
3. Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. The U.S. already spends enought to provide comprehensive care to all Americans with no increase in total costs. However, the vast health care resources now squandered on bureaucracy (mostly due to efforts to divert costs to other payers or on to patients themselves), profits, marketing, and useless or even harmful medical interventions must be shifted to needed care.
4. In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decisions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats
Lets take a look at these:
Access to comprehensive care is a human right To society this is an unsettled question. "Human rights" are commonly divided into "negative" rights (Congress shall make no law....) which prevent the government from infringing on one's personal freedom, these usually do not impose a cost on other members of a community, and "positive rights" which state that one has a "right" to something (food, housing, ect..). These rights impose a cost on other members of society. Certainly health care would be a "positive right". As such granting it would be subject to scrutiny. As for the "comprehensive"-ness of coverage, this is what could make or break the system. I agree that a catastrophic medical illness shouldn't bankrupt anybody. The reason that people insure their houses and cars is to prepare for the unexpected. But those types of insurance don't pay for gas or a new coat of paint. Those are paid for by the driver/homeowner, and they know of those costs. Patients today have no idea the true cost of their healthcare. This plan would eliminate co-pays so every day would be free doctorin'.
Coverage should not be tied to employment No disagreement here. Why don't we give individual's the same tax benefits for purchasing health insurance that businesses do.
Private insurance firms past record disqualifies them from a central role in managing health care As if the government has done better with Medicare/Medicaid/VA systems. This plan would eliminate all forms of private insurance. No competition for the government.
The right to choose and change one's physician is fundamental to patient autonomy. Patients should be free to seek care from any licensed health care professional. No argument here.
Pursuit of corporate profit and personal fortune have no place in caregiving and they create enormous waste. Medical innovation requires risk taking and there should be the potential of payoff if the innovation is successful. This is why the drug and medical device industries in America are the worlds finest. If you want the best and brightest to persue medicine, you have to insure that they will make a good living.
The U.S. already spends enought to provide comprehensive care to all Americans with no increase in total costs Really? Show me the figures. Every time someone states that elimination of "bureaucracy" can pay for everything else, look out.
In a democracy, the public should set overall health policies. Personal medical decsions must be made by patients with their caregivers, not by corporate or government bureaucrats This could be a set up for a tyranny of the majority. The health policy of the nation could change with the politacal landscape. Abortion and euthanasia could be subjected to political or economic whim. The personal medical decisions would be, for the most part, be restriced by policies at the national level under a central system.
I encourage all to "read the whole thing" as they say. As always i invite your comments.
|
