|« Previous||Main||Next »|
Respected health care analyst Jeff Goldsmith has a great post over at The Health Care Blog, in which he makes the following point about mandated universal coverage:
To simply assume that extending coverage to the 47 million uninsured somehow assures access and, therefore, better health, requires multiple leaps of faith. There are many physical, cultural and economic barriers separating “coverage” from “access”.
Mandates don’t have magical powers. Seems reasonable. So, what does he suggest?
Rather than focusing on unaffordable mandates and massive tax-based subsidies, extending coverage should focus on affordability (vitally important for the more than ten million younger uninsured) and ease of access to multiple insurance options …
In other words, treat the disease rather than the symptom. Why is it that so many “progressive” analysts have such difficulty absorbing something so obvious?
Add a comment
+ May 2007
February 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I think that you misunderstand the insurance industry!
They are many advatages to the risk management industry for the government to mandated healthcare:
ask any company that has managed Social Sec ( yes there are private companies that contract to administer SS)and you will find that it is a guaranteed profitable enterprise.
for the insurance company it is the opportunity to include EVERYBODY, this eliminates many problems,
the profits will be guaranteed and the losess covered,
the gov will legislate what it pays every MD, nurse, CRNA, Pump tech (I know that if u are one u hate being called a pump tech) ect.,
there are more reasons
I have been a saleman in the insurance ind. for more that 20 years and trust me,they do NOTHING that does not make a profit
February 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“Mandates” simply insure that the private companies will continue to waste resources. They have proven they cannot compete with National (not for profit) healthcare systems.