tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post1727786428222206391..comments2023-12-10T10:06:41.979+00:00Comments on mutations of mortality: Health care costsTerry Hamblinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-72027128129887031582009-09-25T15:23:38.465+01:002009-09-25T15:23:38.465+01:00Sara was the wife of A L-W and achieved a career b...Sara was the wife of A L-W and achieved a career boost from that. I haven't heard anything by her for years. <br /><br />Unbridled capitalism certainly produces many innovations but can lead to exploitation of the weak. It needs to be governed by criminal law to stop people killing or maiming those who oppose them and contract law to force people to keep to agreements. Unfortunately, fallen mankind will make every effort to turn situations to his advantage, legal or not. When the losers are losing too much to the winners, the losers tend to club together to attack the winners. To avoid that, informal social contracts are agreed to. The rich are taxed to benefit the poor. In any capitalist society the limits of that social contract vary with the times.Terry Hamblinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-10330910362833716832009-09-25T15:09:12.843+01:002009-09-25T15:09:12.843+01:00The essential element of free enterprise is not co...The essential element of free enterprise is not competition. It's freedom, the absence coercion.<br /><br />Capitalism didn't just bring us advances in medicine. It brought us the modern world, all the things those advances depended on.<br /><br />And I'm still waiting for some good Christian to explain to me how his religious beliefs lead to the conclusion that he should (via his govt) be forcing some to serve others, as is done in non-capitalistic societies.<br /><br />BTW, doc, as I write this, I'm listening to a Sarah Brightman CD. Is she still popular in Great Britain?Burkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-42909675305691770872009-09-24T12:25:03.347+01:002009-09-24T12:25:03.347+01:00Competition may not serve to lower prices, but I c...Competition may not serve to lower prices, but I can assure you that it does serve to improve the overall quality of care.<br /><br />People go where they perceive that their medical care and 'people care' (personal service) are the best and may even be willing (to a point) to pay more for such care and attention.<br /><br />Centralized regulation likely guarantees minimum service, but can remove the incentives to improve upon the minimums.<br /><br />In the US to date, competition has served to improve healthcare beyond what would have been achieved based on the basic altruistic drive of healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, ancillary care and institutions themselves).<br /><br />DWCLLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-6102096747432670052009-09-24T08:53:43.562+01:002009-09-24T08:53:43.562+01:00Competition doesn’t lower prices in medical care a...Competition doesn’t lower prices in medical care as it does in other markets, because physicians usually choose the services to be provided and are paid largely by insurance — not by the consumers for whose business they would compete if this were an ordinary market. <br /><br />New England Journal of Medicine - this weekTerry Hamblinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06346629921055055879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-47907229346946545552009-09-22T18:09:12.206+01:002009-09-22T18:09:12.206+01:00As long as the govt is involved in our health care...As long as the govt is involved in our health care, it will be a mess. <br /><br />Every alternative to the free market is just some exploiting others by force and is ultimately destructive.<br /><br />There is no free market in health care or anything else in the US. And there never has been. Virtually all our problems are caused by this fact.<br /><br />These are lessons that will be learned the hard way.Burkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19490962.post-64091080071712201552009-09-22T17:42:11.304+01:002009-09-22T17:42:11.304+01:00I don’t have any definitive answers, but I am cert...I don’t have any definitive answers, but I am certain that any omnibus plan to radically alter health care provision and delivery in a country of such size and diversity as the US is doomed to fail the ultimate test...providing better healthcare for more of the population.<br /><br />I agree that some rationing is inevitable, but would prefer to see market forces dictate the limits at the upper levels of service provided and cost per such services. By that I mean, people who can afford the “premium” service ought to be able to choose whether or not to obtain it (after considering carefully the cost/benefit analysis in each individual circumstance) while there certainly should be some “floor” or “safety net” which assures basic care more or less for everyone.<br /><br />The problem in the US is that as we have slowly evolved into more of a welfare state with the programs adopted after WWII, more and more people are now ‘addicted” to their entitlements. As we push the envelope, increasing the availability and largesse of the entitlements, we have fewer and fewer people working to pay for the benefits of the collective population.<br /><br />Currently the liberal politicians (aka the Democrats) are heady with their power and I fear that they will institute programs that will prove to be unaffordable to future generations. It is far easier to withhold candy from a baby that it is to take it away from a baby!<br /><br />A rationale approach would be to identify cost effective methods to provide a safety net while methodically working on correcting the many faults of the current system in a stepwise fashion.<br /><br />The current Senate plan to tax developers and manufacturers of medical devices and to tax health insurance companies to provide for the “new” health plan is irrational. What incentive will there be to develop the next generation of medical devices and biopharmaceuticals?<br /><br />We in the US are heading down a slippery slope and would be better served by moving slowly and methodically with time permitted to assess and modify the changes as we go. Omnibus legislation is very dangerous, but is in keeping with Mr. Obama’s “rock star” image.<br /><br />DWCLLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com