Massachusetts Tries to Tackle Healthcare
(See here) an NPR article that discusses the state of Massachusetts' efforts to crack the tough nut of what to do about healthcare.
My first reaction was: What, Massachusetts is going to MANDATE that her citizens MUST purchase health care coverage? Isn't that a little un-American?
But as I thought about it, I came to the realization that we ARE going to have to do something. Is this, requiring citizens to purchase at least minimal health care coverage, any more draconian then forcing citizens to pay taxes to support socialized medicine?
Massachusetts seems willing to embark on a social experiment that the rest of us can sit back and watch.
One question I still have though. While this program might solve the problem of what to do about the uninsured, just how does this help us to control runaway healthcare costs? Won't this potentially have the affect of adding fuel to the fire?
My first reaction was: What, Massachusetts is going to MANDATE that her citizens MUST purchase health care coverage? Isn't that a little un-American?
But as I thought about it, I came to the realization that we ARE going to have to do something. Is this, requiring citizens to purchase at least minimal health care coverage, any more draconian then forcing citizens to pay taxes to support socialized medicine?
Massachusetts seems willing to embark on a social experiment that the rest of us can sit back and watch.
One question I still have though. While this program might solve the problem of what to do about the uninsured, just how does this help us to control runaway healthcare costs? Won't this potentially have the affect of adding fuel to the fire?
posted by Little David at 4/08/2006 09:06:00 AM
2 Comments:
To control your "runaway" health costs, just do what the rest of the Western world does - where they get (near) universal health coverage, similar outcomes and much lower cost. Socialise your health care system.
Thus, everyone has access to a certain minimum standard level of health care. If you want more/better services, you have to pay.
The American system discourages primary and preventative health care in those who need it most. Stopping the "poor" from getting cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. by regular, affordable access to a GP is much cheaper in the long run than having people front up with endpoints of their chronic disease.
Regards,
Michael Tam
vitualis' Medical Rants
Well I agree America is going to be forced to do something.
While I tend to lean towards some form of socialization, I am uncertain just how much socialization needs to be included in the formula of the final solution. Socialized medicine does seem to have its own basket of problems, as I discussed earlier (here). Unfortunately the New York Times article I linked to in my comments has expired unless you have a subscription to TimesSelect. (I know you have read this one Michael, because you commented on it, however I provide this link for anyone else who happens to follow our conversation.)
When socialized medicine is talked about in America, the Canadian model (probably due to geographic proximity) is the one most often pointed to. Perhaps Australia has a better model then Canada, but if so, most Americans, myself included, are unfamiliar with the details.
Post a Comment
<< Home