Comments on: WSJ Op-Ed: RomneyCare Is Life-Threatening CoerciveCare

By: Rosemary

Rosemary — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:35:27 +0000

Just a little of my two cents. Do you remember how Teddy Kennedy wailed about the rip-off’s that those HMO’s were? That is because most people are too young to remember that the HMO program was HIS! 1964. That is when we started having these problems. Then, of course, came along the John Edwards’ types, and malpractice insurance kept some doctors from practicing when they graduated leaving a very high unpaid student loan…need I go on to show the effect of how government regulation/intervion/tyranny effects every part of our economy? Didn’t think so.

Great article, Tom. Gregg was correct. You’re the tops. ;)

By: dscott

dscott — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:33:21 +0000

Exactly, we shouldn’t mess with system that delivers the best medical care in the world. We should address some individual issues that make basic medical care costly.
1. Three tiered rate structure charged to users of the system, it must be ended, no more false discounts and forcing subsidization of PC users of the systems.
2. Get rid of the 12 million illegals who use our system for free making the rest of us pay when they skate on the bill.
3. Tort reform - there is a place for lawyers to seek compensation for “bonifide” injury from malpractice, there needs to be a means to screen out those who play the lottery, like in the obstetrics area.

By: Joe C.

Joe C. — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:13:09 +0000

FYI: All health care systems ration, the difference being by what. I may have mentioned this before: There are 5 domains to health care access - affordability, availability, accommodation, accessibility, and acceptability.

The U.S. system rations by affordability, but the European/Canadian model ration by availability (how many), accessibility (location), and accommodation (flexibility). [I’ll stipulate that acceptability - how nice people are - may be equal.]

Basically, what we are paying extra for is that which Eur/Can ration. We also have three other major high-cost disadvantages: 1) oppressive state and federal regulations; 2) defensive medicine; and 3) the rest of the world basically piggybacking on our R&D without reimbursement (sorta like our military).

We have to decide how much we are willing to do without in order to have “universal coverage” - quality being the big thing. In order to have a single-payer system (SPS), or even a modified SPS like Canada, our entire regulatory system, economy, and culture will need to be re-engineered. It would be alot easier - and cheaper - to fix the problems with what we have now - most of which are caused by the government.

Universal health care is political and cultural, not medical and economic. Why would anyone expect Washington to produce a better, cheaper result with a 200 year history of producing most everything worse and more expensive, except for the military.