I don't disagree in general, but I think the example he chose is a poor one; he seems to imply that a single-payer system will pay without question or limitation for expensive cancer (and other) drugs. And that's just not going to happen, nor does it happen in any other single-payer system, whether it's the VA, a state plan, or another country's system. Care is always rationed; it has to be, or the cost of the plan would bankrupt the system.
Contrasting someone's need for a lifesaving drug against "the free market" is an orthogonal argument. If anything, a truly free market (which we don't have) would allow someone to choose a plan whose terms specified that it would pay for (for example) any FDA-approved medication. (It would obviously be an expensive plan.)
I think, probably, that we will end up eventually with a single-payer system, and in the meantime Obama's plan for a pluralistic system with both public and private plans is a good on. But trying to sell single-payer with the argument that it will pay for all drugs and all treatments for everybody is simply disingenuous.
Like the previous commenter, I agree with the general sentiment, but think he got some details wrong. He says we already have a "universal healthcare system" because someone can go to the hospital or the doctor without being able to pay, and then we pay. That is not exactly true. Yes, you can go to the emergency room, and IF you have an urgent/emergent medical issue, the hospital has to see you, insurance or no. But if you don't, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEE YOU. And as for seeing a doctor, fuhgeddaboutit. I called to make a doctor's appointment for my boss the other day. And EVEN THOUGH it was the same doctor he'd seen for several years, and EVEN THOUGH he'd ALWAYS had insurance for past visits, they would NOT make the appointment until I gave them his current health insurance information, including the provider, the group number, his ID number, and the copay amount. Without that information, they refused to even block out the time.
So tell me we have a healthcare system that allows everyone to get medical care, whose main problem is that assets aren't managed well, and I'll tell you you're dead wrong, and the problem is far worse than that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 02:16 am (UTC)Contrasting someone's need for a lifesaving drug against "the free market" is an orthogonal argument. If anything, a truly free market (which we don't have) would allow someone to choose a plan whose terms specified that it would pay for (for example) any FDA-approved medication. (It would obviously be an expensive plan.)
I think, probably, that we will end up eventually with a single-payer system, and in the meantime Obama's plan for a pluralistic system with both public and private plans is a good on. But trying to sell single-payer with the argument that it will pay for all drugs and all treatments for everybody is simply disingenuous.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 03:15 am (UTC)So tell me we have a healthcare system that allows everyone to get medical care, whose main problem is that assets aren't managed well, and I'll tell you you're dead wrong, and the problem is far worse than that.