Books.

OK, technically it’s not the same because what they did was work out how to make 10000x cost less than x. But they did work out how to do it.

But my point is that you CAN make stuff cost less AND make more of them. You might have to invent stuff to do it, but it is possible.

Since the Democrats are implying that healthcare is a right for all, the answer will not be to cut back care. The answer will be to raise taxes or to pay providers and hospitals less. This will in turn decrease the care that the average patient receives. There must be repercussions to bad financial planning and poor life choices. Egalitarianism is evil. It demands every child be punished when only one steals a cookie. It punishes the child who obeys and saves by splitting up his savings to give to the child who lived for the moment. If this new morality extends for any period at all, there will be no reason to excel. This is a real disincentive for being responsible as socialist countries have learned. Canadian specialists limit the number of patients they will treat because there is no benefit to being a slave. I am sure some believe Doctors should be glad to work for less. Market forces are what makes a medical career attractive. Remove the benefits of that career and watch the quality and number of people entering the profession plummet. Part of me would prefer that my plumber was compelled to work for a fee set by the government but I would not blame that plumber for changing his profession.

I think that most people agree that the U.S. system can be improved, but the socialized, single-payer systems are not an improvement. See this decision by the Supreme Court of Canada for example:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc35/2005scc35.html

Although I have no link, a few months ago I read that in England hospitals were making people wait in their ambulances rather than come into the ER because the official wait time does not start until you are inside.

I have experience with the Medicaid system as implemented in Arizona and (1) big private insurance companies are still involved; (2) many (enrolled) people are denied requested medical services by these insurers/the state; and (3) the doctors and hospitals are frequently not paid for providing services that are covered. Unlike the private system, when the Doc does not get paid by the insurers/the state they cannot bill the patient. As others have remarked, this is not a system that is likely to encourage people to become doctors.

In my view, the problem with health care in the US is not on the business end, but in how doctor’s themselves practice. Look at Mayo Clinic, where doctor’s check each other’s work and are accountable to the organization for their results. If that were the norm, which it certainly isn’t, costs would come down and results would improve. Doctor’s in private care are essentially unaccountable, arrogant, and provide surprisingly poor care unless your problem is trivial.

This leads to more lawsuits, to higher costs because people are too often diagnosed late in the progress of their disease, and to more visits overall, clogging the system.

Doctor’s are also, as a class, given too much deference. There’s a fundamental moral hazard in having a whole class of people who cannot be criticized, and I think we’ve seen the results of that hazard in the system.

Sorry about the rant. It’s just that I think our discussion of this issue tends to be completely off target. The health care system can be improved dramatically.

$50 bn may sounds like a lot of money, but it is a pittance in comparison to US healthcare spending. US healthcare is a $2.26 trillion/year business. it’s 15% of GDP. 50 billion is 2% of spending. even if he were to take all of the profits of the entire industry (and keep in mind that much of their profit comes from other lines like property/casualty), it would make NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE.

this plan is a sham and a trojan house, pure and simple. drive the insurers out of the business (and probably out of malpractice as well) and replace them with single payor. THAT will be a disaster and lead to astronomical premiums for anyone who actually wants private coverage to avoid the endless waits that will come with single payor.

the british health system BRAGS that wait times to see a specialist after a referral are now down to an average of six months. i don’t know about you, but that sounds like a much lower standard of care than i am interested in.