From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Health care will-o-wisps
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.045602.3752@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>This is what I consider to be the most compelling reason AGAINST national
>health insurance.
>
>Since private companies would still participate to a large extent in health
>care, they would definitely move to take advantage of every loophole in the
>system to take more away from patients and taxpayers.  The government would
>be moving to close those loopholes all the time.
>
>Who do you think would move faster and smarter?  The government would have to
>regulate the use and charge of everything from needles to complex operations.
>Even if they had no corrupt, politically motivated intentions to take care of
>special interests, it would still be a formidable task to manage.
>
>The broadest issue has to be fairness to all players: consumers, payers,
>and providers.  With national health insurance, either taxpayers or patients
>(probably both) will lose big time.  Something has to give for the inability
>of the government to cope with private providers.

A properly designed NHI creates a system of checks and balances which
controls costs...what a properly designed system will do will create
a body which represents "patients" or the "health-care" consumer which
has the power to bargain collectively with hospitals and other health
care institutions and with the doctors "union" over what fees for
services will be.  The problem with the current American system is
that there is no system of checks and balances on the system...because
the health care industry has lucrative tax loopholes, and
is allowed to ration on the basis of ability to pay.

A properly-designed NHI scheme creates an insurer whose prime interest
is in providing insurance for everyone at an affordable cost...which
is really the public interest in health care.  Private insurers are
interested only in profit, which is only proper and there is nothing
wrong with profit, but it doesn't facilitate the public policy goals
of insuring everyone, which is not a profit-making enterprise, and
controlling societal costs.  There is no money to be made insuring
sick people which is why society must intervene either to mandate
the private insurers to accept all comers, or to develop a NHI scheme.


With the lucrative tax loopholes afforded the well-off in the US for
their health care, it is an absurd fallacy to describe the American
system as a market-oriented system.  The current American health system
is massively subsidized through the tax system and rations on the
basis of ability to pay...it is in fact the worst type of "socialized"
system in the world...a three tier system...unlimited benefits are    
subsidized by the tax system for the well off with private hospitals
and private doctors, a second tier is public hospitals and public 
doctors for veterans and the like, and the third tier is rationed 
care on the basis of ability to pay.

Gerald
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44346 talk.abortion:35726 alt.politics.bush:4475 alt.politics.homosexuality:5848