From: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Bush's long-term damage
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:54:13 GMT
 <1992Oct6.165228.4298@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1992Oct06.175355.22689@watson.ibm.com> <1atf1vINN8jj@fido.asd.sgi.com>
 <1992Oct07.120029.5533@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct07.120029.5533@watson.ibm.com>, mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael
Phelps) says:
>
>In article <1atf1vINN8jj@fido.asd.sgi.com>, aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com     n
>(Alla
>Schaffer) writes:
>
>> WASHINGTON (UPI) --
>>       Gov. Bill Clinton's plan to overhaul the nation's
>> health care system would save more money and provide health insurance to
>> more Americans than President Bush's proposal, a bipartisan report
>> concluded Thursday.
>>         The nation would spend $2.2 trillion more on health care over the
>> next 12 years under Bush's proposal compared to Clinton's, and 27
>> million Americans would still have no health insurance, according to the
>> report from Families USA, a non-profit health care reform advocacy
>> group.  [...]
>>         Bush's plan would save $31 billion in spending on health care by the
>> year 2000 while the Clinton plan would save $211 billion, the report
>> said. By the year 2005, the Bush plan would save $46 billion compared to
>> a savings of $481 billion under Clinton's plan, the report said.
>>       [...]
>>         While Clinton's plan would provide health insurance to all Americans
>> by the year 2005, Bush's plan would leave 27 million Americans without
>> insurance, the report said. In addition, Bush's plan would leave 11.8
>> million more Americans ``underinsured'' than Clinton's plan by the end
>> of the decade, the report said.
>>
>
>At the risk of sounding like a broken record, whats the goverment's track
>record at running cost effective efficient businesses (which is what the
>health
>care stuff is IMHO).. hell, they can't even run a post office.

The track record in health care is very good.  Medicare has lower
administrative costs than private insurers.  A recent report also
indicates that it is far more effective at catching insurance fraud.
Medicare has the most innovative payment systems, which are now be copied
not only by private American insurers, but also by many other countries
interested in ways to reform their incentive systems.

>Yes, the current method has problems, but i'd rather they be dealt with by
>reforming the malpractice stuff[1], adjusting the existing goverment sponsored
>medical programs[2], and fostering competition to act as a check on high
>prices[3]
>Not very glamorous, but effective.

Effective according to what authority?  Even the AMA has estimated that the
savings that might come from malpractice reform is only on the order of 20
billion dollars.  Gail Wilensky, Bush's adviser on health care, has stated
in repeated interviews that malpractice reform will not have a major effect
on containing costs.

Re: changing government programs and preventative medicine.  There's little
evidence that a preventative medicine will save dollars, unless it is
extended to the uninsured.  By recent estimates, Bush's plan will leave 27
million uninsured in 2005.  In addition, private insurers, not just
government programs, have been equally guilty of ignoring preventative
medicine.  At the very least, you should include them in your plan.


A large and growing body of economic evidence suggests that simple market
models which predict declining costs with competition, do not apply to the
realities of health care, in particular the unique combinations of
uncertainty, asymmetric information, and externalities that exist in many
of these markets.  A number of empirical studies suggest that tinkering
with the system, while encouraging competition will actually increase costs.

>[1]-For instance, my wife worked for a doctor, who has an excellent rep, and  s
>ha
>    never had any kind of problem.  She pays incredibly high premimums simply
>    because she does delicate, complex procedures.. not because she's a bad
>    doctor.  These costs show up in her bills
>[2]-Allow preventive medicine coverage
>[3]-The doctors know exactly how much they can squeeze out of the insurance
>    companies, and charge it.
>
>Big goverment (republican or democrat) is *not* our friend..
...and neither is blind adherence to an economic model that doesn't
fit the reality of health care markets.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics.clinton