Governors consider business's No. 1 problem: health-care costs

[papau]

At $5,440 for every American in 2002, the U.S. spends more of its gross domestic product on health services than any other Western nation, yet Americans are sicker and die earlier than people in countries that spend far less.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/regionalpolitics/2001983619_govhealth20m.html


Governors consider business's No. 1 problem: health-care costs

By Kyung M. Song
Seattle Times staff reporter


STEVE RINGMAN / THE SEATTLE TIMES
Jeffrey Smith of Memphis, Tenn., was among demonstrators outside the governors meeting yesterday. Smith holds a photo of Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, part of a declaration of the "10 worst states" for services for the disabled.

Ford Motor Co. spent $3.2 billion last year to provide health care for its 560,000 employees, retirees and dependents. And every Ford car or truck buyer paid for it in the form of about $1,000 in sticker price for each vehicle. <snip>

As for the solutions, they were the topic of the closing session of the National Governors Association's annual meeting yesterday at Seattle's Westin Hotel. Unfortunately, consensus ran deeper on what is wrong with the U.S. health-care system than on how to fix it.

Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, endorsed a free-market system built on consumer knowledge and responsibility, and information technology. Gingrich favors, for example, offering all state employees Health Savings Accounts to manage their medical spending, requiring that all prescriptions be written electronically to reduce errors, and publicizing hospital performance data and prices of services.

Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff under President Clinton, supported a comprehensive approach to tackle issues ranging from the 44 million Americans without health insurance to the health needs of patients with chronic conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. Panetta urged the Bush administration to exercise "greater fiscal discipline" to curb deficit spending and free up money for social services. <snip>

[sybylla]

1. Won't be long and it will be everyone's #1 problem

The fewer people buying into insurance plans, the more expensive they get and the more people who can't afford it any more. It will snowball and suddenly, we'll have a huge health care crisis in this country.

Funny I haven't heard of any mass layoffs at insurance companies even though there are fewer insured in this country than ten or even five years ago. Yet how many other companies are laying off workers to save money?

For too long insurance companies and medical facilities have thought that they only have to raise prices to meet shortfalls. Everyone needs health care, right? They'll pay for it because they have to, right?

How much longer do we have before only a few can pay for it? IMHO, not much.

It's time for the governors to stop talking and start doing something.

[mbperrin]

2. Please, everybody repeat after me:

When you restrict the supply of any good (like health care), and that is what HMOs and their brethren do, the price of that good will rise.

This is Econ 101. The purpose of HMOs is not to make anything affordable or availabe, but to rake in huge sums of money for HMOs, and they have done a wonderful job of that.

A national single payer program would cost less and provide more service to more people. No country spends what the US spends, and most countries get far more for their. The system we have is doing just what it's designed to do - enrich the middlemen who dreamed it up,

The rest is politics.

[Rose Siding]

3. Electronic perscriptions

Bush talked about this being the solution at one point (he said the real problem is doctors' bad handwriting so it sounded even more stupid) and all I could think was that some powerful repub has developed a program/system they want the govt to purchase.

Newt wants "all prescriptions be written electronically to reduce errors", like there are never any electronic errors.

[sybylla]

4. Don't know how anyone will make any money off of that

I filled a prescription yesterday that was printed off a computer and signed by the doctor. No electronic transmission needed. No mistake made.

Sounds like Newt's buddies are trying to sell snow to an Eskimo.

[depakid]

10. Actually this is a big problem

and there is a lot of documentation on it. Of course, the issue is broader than handwriting errors- many incompatible drugs have similar sounding names and physicians aren't always up to date on adverse drug interactions- especially where patients are using dietary supplements or alternative medicines.

As you mention, electronic prescribing systems have all of the same weaknesses that any computer program does- Cedar Sinai hospital in Los Angeles learned that the hard way. Even so, electronic prescribing- as well as more comprehensive clinical information systems, have the ability to prevent medical errors and create efficiencies that significantly reduce health care costs. Unfortunately, with our fragmented for profit system, adopting such sensible measures is difficult and prohibitively expensive in many places.

[CO Liberal]

5. CO Liberal Considers America's No. 1 Problem: Stupid Governors

Like the asshole we have here in Colorado (Bill Owens) and the assholes in California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, ....

[UpInArms]

6. health care is "big bidness" ............. eom

[74dodgedart]

7. More tax cuts will fix it....

[Red State Rebel]

8. I can testify to that...

We own a small business and in order to keep decent employees you have to offer Health Insurance. The costs are outrageous! For hubby and me, a single father and his son and another single guy our premiums for one month are over $1,500.00. Between that and the outrageous payroll taxes, and workers comp/liability insurance (over $1,300.00/month for that) it's killing us.

[biftonnorton]

9. One Reason Powers That Be Fight Gay Marriage

I wonder if insurance companies don't want to have to cover, on discounted group plans, the increased number of spouses that would show up if same-sex marriage was legal. Employers would also be out $, too, I suppose, if they had to extend benefits to the new spouses. Hmmm. :tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

11. Prevention is CHEAPER. But Repukes would rather pay more just to PUNISH

the poor for being poor.

That's all there is to this "debate."