Health Care Reform

A prior blog entry admitted that health care "reform" was dead; at this point, I have no reason to reconsider the conclusion. We may well see a piece of legislation passed, but it will not reform the system of health care.

I have been a proponent of universal funding of health care because this appeared to the only way to address health care access as a common good and a means for controlling costs. Proponents of other systems, e.g., Health Savings Accounts, never appeared to be a realistic option.

David Godhill may not have converted me to a more consumer-driven system, but his article surely made me think. He admits that his ideas of reform would take a generation to fully implement, but the logic of his analysis is difficult to dispute. As long as our system distances the consumer from the costs of the system, we are in a situation where the normal role of a consumer-driven society works ineffectively. We have no system to say "no" to how our health care is being delivered.

Addendum: On 30 Sept, Stephen Pearlstein supported a similar view. Insurance should be geared more towards a system that insured against catastrophe rather than a prepayment system for health care.

Addendum: on 3 October, John Mackey was interviewed regarding his op-ed article on his approach to healthcare. I would be able to buy into much of his approach even though it would represent quite a change from my general approach which is a more common good (socialistic) model. If the votes were there for such a model, I would love to see if it could work. Clearly, I like the idea that people will need to provide more dollars to support their own health (higher deductibles) which will lower the costs of premiums. What always gets in the way is the method of addressing the needs of those without sufficient money to have access to quality health care.