Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I can't answer your question. I'm not sure it's an important question. You seem to be concerned about the possibility that a healthcare system might employ an internal system to ensure its own efficiency. Seems odd to me, coming from you.
|
No, my question was specific - you take it to mean something that was not in the question. I am concerned about how limited health care resource would be allocated under Obama's plan. I think QALY is subjective, I don't like it and if Obama's plan would employ something similar I could not support his plan.
I am confused by the inability to address a simple concept and a simple question. Why not say, yes. We will employ a method to determine when medical treatment will not be paid for and this is how we would do it? Not being clear, is making people more and more concerned.
Quote:
|
Every method of allocating resources fails to allocate them perfectly.
|
Some systems would be more efficient than others. Providing "free" coverage has to be the most inefficient.
The second has to be a system like Obama is saying about preexisting conditions. If I am healthy, I don't buy insurance. If I get diagnosed with prostrate cancer, I buy a policy, get treatment and then cancel the policy. that is what you would get with what Obama talks about.
Quote:
|
Furthermore, I have yet to see evidence that the goverment bureaucrats would do worse than the private ones have. In fact, there are certain other countries where it would seem that the government bureaucrats are doing better (that is, if you trust the World Health Organization, which apparently you don't).
|
How about this - Medicare is going broke. Private health insurance companies a) are required by law to maintain adequate reserves and b) they actually do have reserves to meet future needs. The private bureaucrats follow actuary sound practices, government does not. Score 1 for the private sector.