Someone please explain to me why it will get better when it applies to all of us?
Whenever I think of government health care, I can’t help but think about the DMV.
15 thoughts on “Government-Run Health Care”
Comments are closed.
Someone please explain to me why it will get better when it applies to all of us?
Whenever I think of government health care, I can’t help but think about the DMV.
Comments are closed.
The “it” that will “get better” is not the “it” the question implies.
The “it” that will “get better” is the power the Federal government will wield over its putative source of power — that of the People, and of the states.
Not to worry, though. The “processes” will all be followed scrupulously.
All you have to do is look at the people denied
care by private hospitals and dumped on the streets
to know the system is badly broken.
Until Bush got a hold of the VA, it was the standard of
care for which all other hospitals were being held against,
in 18 of 21 practice areas. Business Week did a piece
on why the VA works, and why it has such high efficiency.
as for the source poster? No idea, you can find disgruntled patients anywhere.
It depends on how the government is involved in health care. My preference is to have the government do what it does best: write checks. The actual provision of services should remain with private physicians like me. Still, the VA does some amazingly useful and efficient things that we could all learn from.
One story is not evidence. If you want actual data check out Philip Longman’s “Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care is Better Than Yours”.
But if all you want is stories, I can say that I’ve gotten much better service from the DMV than from my private health insurer, and that the best doctors I know work for the VA.
I can say that I’ve gotten much better service from the DMV than from my private health insurer
Then why don’t you change private health insurers?
If the system is “badly broken” Mr. Lee, perhaps it’s because many of the people denied care by private hospitals and dumped on the streets were first dumped on the streets and denied care by the public health system that declared them “cured” in a two fold failing of misplaced compassion and cost-effectiveness. There are a few people out there who refuse to take care of themselves and they are the majority of costs and effort for our medical system.
Then why don’t you change private health insurers?
I believe that my current one (Anthem) is the only one that offers policies that cover both Massachusetts and New Hampshire (where my employees and I live, respectively).
I know that there are other options in Massachusetts, but I haven’t heard good things about them either, and I’d rather deal with one crummy company than two.
Robert Mitchell
“If, and Perhaps”
I don’t discuss Hypotheticals. If you have some evidence
please come back.
Rand Says:
“I can say that I’ve gotten much better service from the DMV than from my private health insurer
Then why don’t you change private health insurers?”
Because I get my health insurance through my employer
and unless they change the carrier, I don’t have a vote
on that.
Because I get my health insurance through my employer
and unless they change the carrier, I don’t have a vote
on that.
Nothing stops you from buying your own. That you get it from your employer is a consequence of foolish government tax policies, that favor employer-provided health insurance over individually purchased policies. Why don’t you complain about that?
I have no idea how to do hypertext, so google “2700 Emergency Room Visits and a $3 Million Tab attributed to just 9 People!”. The fact that many of the homeless would be in institutions before the “Great Unlearning” gave them psychotropic drugs and set them free is easy to track as well.
Just look at what happens here in the UK – wicked chasing of ‘targets’ to make politicians happy, based on socialist, social engineering ideals.
Jane Bernstein is totally correct – the government *can* pay the bill, *but* there must be a _real_ free market in the provision of medical care. The money _has_ to stay with the consumer of the services, so they can make their own decisions about the provision of their healthcare – sites like ratemds.com can certainly help here.
However, this will run up against professional bodies who are too busy feather-bedding their existing members (GMC over here) to care too much about letting others handle some aspects of health-care provision. In a sense, it’s still very much a ‘closed-shop’ in medicine, as it is with most (all?) professions.
> Because I get my health insurance through my employer and unless they change the carrier, I don’t have a vote on that.
Sure you do. You get to choose your employer, at least for now.
I note that you don’t get to choose your govt.
> Because I get my health insurance through my employer and unless they change the carrier, I don’t have a vote on that.
Sure you do. You get to choose your employer, at least for now.
I note that you don’t get to choose your govt.
It’s called an election.
Very well written post.I think people who think the gov should run health care are people who have never been under the care of a gov facility. They don’t get it, they think that either it will be like Emergency Rooms are now, where you get quality care, the ED begs the gov for reimbursement, and the gov pays them a pittance…