good quote from regi
a prof of mine has a pretty good quote in the nytimes today (article here, requires log in) regarding the hype around health care savings plans:
am headed to sedona today to hang with hippies and b list movie starts...but this topic is worth blogging more about later. bottom line, i think the two sides are talking past each other on the issue. dems focus on coverage and repubs focus on costs/delivery efficiency. both are key, and are not mutually exclusive. a market-based system will indeed help control costs, but it will not change the 45mm folks who lack coverage. the dems fuck themselves by advocating universal coverage as a way to control costs. it's not. it is a way to address the moral issue of people bankrupting themselves or choosing between food and their prescription. universal coverage gets to the emotional argument--it's a great populist argument.
the repubs fuck themselves by ignoring the call for better coverage and addressing how the sysstem supplies product to meet demand. it's a great business solution but comes across as morally bankrupt b/c they never talk about how/when they'll address the coverage issue.
is it really that hard to see that we need both solutions? as long as we keep confusing the issue, we're not going to get very far.
Regina E. Herzlinger, a professor at Harvard Business School, said: "Insuring the uninsured is a fine objective, but how will this control the health costs that are hobbling our global competitiveness? Health savings accounts will increase coverage, and that's great. But they are being touted as a way to control costs, and I very much doubt that claim."
am headed to sedona today to hang with hippies and b list movie starts...but this topic is worth blogging more about later. bottom line, i think the two sides are talking past each other on the issue. dems focus on coverage and repubs focus on costs/delivery efficiency. both are key, and are not mutually exclusive. a market-based system will indeed help control costs, but it will not change the 45mm folks who lack coverage. the dems fuck themselves by advocating universal coverage as a way to control costs. it's not. it is a way to address the moral issue of people bankrupting themselves or choosing between food and their prescription. universal coverage gets to the emotional argument--it's a great populist argument.
the repubs fuck themselves by ignoring the call for better coverage and addressing how the sysstem supplies product to meet demand. it's a great business solution but comes across as morally bankrupt b/c they never talk about how/when they'll address the coverage issue.
is it really that hard to see that we need both solutions? as long as we keep confusing the issue, we're not going to get very far.
posted by Wintermute at 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home