I recently got into a Twitter “debate” regarding M4A. When I started explaining how insurance works and how the real cost problem is not insurance, but how we use health care and it’s price, I was called a shill for insurance companies (I have no financial or other interest in any insurance company).
There was no room for debate or discussion, the other party was anti everything except M4A. The Tweeter echoed every word of political rhetoric uttered on the subject. No facts, no concerns, no possible consequences mattered. He was convinced anything involving profit was bad.
I suggested he read the health care discussions on my blog. “I don’t have to, was the reply, “I know you are a shill for insurance companies.”
But here’s the thing, insurance companies don’t drive up health care costs. Insurance is not health care. Insurance premiums are not health care.
Eliminating health insurers in favor of a federal bureaucracy won’t lower the cost of health care or raise the quality. The non-medical spending by health insurers equals less than 5-6% of national spending on health. Plus all of that cannot be eliminated no matter what system we have. Nearly two-thirds of Americans do not have coverage that uses insurance (including the uninsured).
Ask any large employer if it struggles with health care costs. They certainly do and have for years. And, they have lead the way trying to find innovative ways to manage these costs …. all without insurance involved.
So, if you believe the health care problem is the result of insurance company profits or their CEOs pay, you do not understand the issue or you have effectively been propagandized.
Sometimes spending less, including on administration, is not all positive. Every system has its challenges. The promise being made (and readily accepted by many) for free, unfettered access to health care of all types is a promise that cannot be fulfilled.
In fact, a report by the Commonwealth Fund found it was the most cost-effective in the world.
But what these comparisons also show is that the NHS lags behind the very best in terms of outcomes, such as cancer survival.
Why is this? Nigel Edwards, the widely respected chief executive of the Nuffield Trust think tank, says we may be getting the NHS on the “cheap” – compared with other leading European countries, we spend less as a proportion of GDP (a measure of the size of the economy).
His point? By spending more, we would have better buildings and quicker access to technology and treatments, which would improve care and make it more efficient. Source:BBC.com