The analysis of the CBO may be accurate but it is the only game in town and that is a political game.
INaccurate, I believe you meant to say. True. But if you accept that the CBO is inaccurate and undependable, you now have political cover to go ahead and pass a structurally better plan today, and infuse more funds into in in the future when the citizens have sufficiently beaten the heads in of the GOP naysayers.
That is a far larger problem. But the immediate issue is a bunch of idiots playing politics with people’s lives. They should be focusing on improving ACA and further expanding coverage. That will take time and work.
Sorry, that’s hyperbole. The moment you remove the assumption that the penalties drive enrollment, the “22 million additional uninsured” assumption gets tossed out the window. Regardless, it is still the law of the land that public ERs take the uninsured, inefficient as that may be.
We require a program that controls costs, not just at the provider side, but at the patient side. As long as care is perceived to be a monthly charge with usage free or almost free, we will overconsume services and demand will drive up costs.
So, you get to choose a solution. It can be the Japan solution, where people pay a MONDO co-payment (like, 20% of the billed cost) when services are rendered, or it can be the HSA solution, where people perceive that they’re paying with real money that they won, and self-ration. Another decent model is the Swiss system, where the private insurers behave like regulated utilities.
I choose the HSA. But I could live with the Swiss system as well, especially if the management of it was left to the states under federal guidelines, the way the Swiss work it.
My preference is nationalization of the guaranteed services that need to be provided allowing over all cost reduction.
Probably unconstitutional (the government would actually be seizing assets owned by private individuals) and leads to a worsening quality of care. Next?
But the goal is to depoliticize something that has no business being dealt with as a political game or as a profit making business.
Well, it needs to be a profit making business. Nobody works for free. What medical equipment manufacturer or pharmaceutical company is going to work on a push basis?
Interesting perspective on Sweden although the article I was responding to was specifically talking about Norway.
Norway can do what they like. They have a tiny population and they are swimming in oil. When you have that dynamic, and few nations do, they can pretty much do anything. The only analogous situation we have in the US would be if Alaska decided to run its own health care system.
I think the issue is quality of life. Democratic socialist systems are justifiably at the highest ranking for quality of life.
Sure. Organizations biased towards the European model of governance create a list of criteria biased to that model, then rate nations accordingly. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in Sweden, from the way the government treats my retired in-laws and their special-needs son.
Count me out.