The long-awaited details of the Hillary Clinton health care
finance
plan have been revealed. The plan has received lukewarm
support
from columnists at NYT (Paul
Krugman) and The Economist.
It has been criticized by Mitt
Romney, oddly, as it is quite
similar to the plan he enacted while governor of
Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts plan has, in turn, been
criticized
(by Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein), and the criticism has
been critiqued at A
Healthy Blog (by Brian Rosman and Lindsey Tucker).
The main criticism that opponents have, is the cost of the program.
Mrs. Clinton claims it will cost $110 billion per year.
She claims that she has ways of paying for it. This
cost is not too bad, considering that many people who have insurance
now are paying thousands per year, and still have significant
out-of-pocket expenses.
No, the real problem with the plan is that it ignores the best and most
obvious way of paying for it. The way to pay for it is to get
rid of health insurance companies. That alone would pay for
all the currently uninsured to have insurance, and the total outlay
would be no more than what we are paying now.
The existing Medicare plan is among the most efficient known, with
overhead costs running 3-4%. (contrary to the ideological
belief that private companies are always more efficient that government
programs.) Hospitals and doctor's offices would become much
more efficient too, having only one third-party payer to deal with, and
already having the mechanisms in place.
Search this blog
Profile
Corpus Callosum is written by a psychiatrist at a small community hospital somewhere in midwestern USA. Email to cc.scienceblogger at gmail dot com.
Banner images from CNS Forums. Banner font: Ringbearer.
Feedburner Feed
Quick Add-Feed Links...
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial -Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Recent Posts
- New Financial Plan
- Krugman Wins Nobel; Markets Rally
- The Problem with Bipolar Disorder
- Will People Really Vote Based On the Economy?
- Automobile Raises Testosterone
- Expert: US Voting System Has Fundamental Design Flaw
- Paliperidone: Cost Effective (?)
- Solar Power: What Is Wrong With This Picture?
- Statistically Improbable Phrases in the Debate
- Just Say No! to Mars
Recent Comments
- stumpy on New Financial Plan
- Evan on New Financial Plan
- Boğaz Turları on The Smartest People in the Room
- anon on The Problem with Bipolar Disorder
- Daniel Newby on Automobile Raises Testosterone
- R E G on The Problem with Bipolar Disorder
- R E G on The Problem with Bipolar Disorder
- Aeronautica on Solar Power: What Is Wrong With This Picture?
- N.B. on The Problem with Bipolar Disorder
- miranda on Hypoallergenic Cats
Categories
- Academia
- Antidepressants
- Armchair Musings
- Basic Concepts
- Bioethics
- CME
- Chatter
- Computing
- Energy
- Environment
- Humor
- Medicine
- Meta
- Neuroscience
- Personal
- Photos of Interest
- Politics
- Propaganda
- Psychiatry
- Public Health
- Science News
- Science in the Media
- Social Commentary
- Social Issues
- Uncategorizable
- economy
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
The main blogroll has been moved to its own page, so as not to delay the opening of the main page.
Carnivals
Other Stuff
« Opioids and Sleep Disorders | Main | Microsoft Makes Life Easier »
Clinton Health Plan: Bad
Category: Medicine • Public Health
Posted on: September 25, 2007 12:04 PM, by Joseph j7uy5
Find more posts in: 
Medicine & Health
Politics
Comments
Gee, could all that money from insurers have clouded HRC's thinking?
Posted by: natural cynic | September 25, 2007 1:12 PM
I would nitpick the idea that we should get rid of insurance companies altogether. We should still have private companies to provide complementary care. While the state program can handle health necessities, peripheral concerns (e.g., cosmetics) should probably be left to the private sector.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | September 25, 2007 1:54 PM
The problem is that health insurance racket isn't really an insurance business.
Compare it to life insurance. If you have $250,000 in life insurance and you die, there is no way the company could pay out only $10,000, or simply not pay at all, without getting into trouble with the courts. Unfortunately, it would be handled by civil courts, rather than criminal courts, which have jurisdiction for fraud and theft.
The health insurance racket is much like the car insurance racket, where the company gets to decide how much of what you are due they will actually pony up. They can even stiff completely you and not go to jail. They can certainly outwait you, delaying payments until you give up trying because you died.
The way to fix this is to use existing laws against fraud and theft. When insurers don't pay like they should, there are no settlements: the bad guys go to prison. As a result, insurance companies will quit the rackets where they can't play fair and still make money.
Posted by: Grackle | September 25, 2007 5:29 PM