The debate threads are too cumbersome. Let’s stick to one issue in this thread: Debate Round 3 - Healthcare.
I’m a Kerry supporter but I am exasperated with both of 'em on this. I am at least glad that it was discussed.
First off, Mr. President, Chiron is not a company in England. It is an American company with a factory in England. Second of all, litigation is not the main problem with flu shot production. It is a high risk and low profit business for Pharma to be in, while higher profits await them in “lifestyle drugs.” Demand is unpredictable and your inventory, which takes months to produce, is only good for the season and is then destroyed. We have a crisis of uninsured Americans who end up costing us all more in the long run. We have a crisis in that the cost of employer provision of healthcare benefits is hamstringing US companies in international competion. Yes, tort reform is needed and defensive medicine drives up medical expenses dramatically, but that is only one part of the equation. They need a guarentee of demand before they’ll produce enough. The government needs to share the risk with them: if the CDC is pushing for all kids under two and their entire households to be vaccinated as well as all high risk adults and their households and anyone else who wants it too, then we shoul incentivize the manufacturers to produce enough to fulfill the demand - we will share the cost of excess inventory if we fail to deliver on the demand after we have advised it. In return we might make headway on those 36,000 or so deaths from influenza related complications every year.
Now Senator (hopefully soon “President elect”) Kerry, your running mate has you running away from addressing tort reform, and it is a critical part of any solution, even if it is not enough alone. You never did answer the question about flu shots. And you are tinkering with a system that needs drastic rebuilding more than reform. Pay or play, and expanded the numbers of poor covered by the states by having the government take on other parts of the burden is fine and well (A lot better than Bush’s head in the sand) but the employer based model is flawed beyond repair. We must move from it. A minimal standard of healthcare for all must be recognized as cost efficient for this country and requisite to allow us to compete internationally. Achieving such does not require socialized medicine.
One way would be to require that insurers charge the same price for the same product to all comers, whether they be individual purchasers, small businesses, or megacorporations. No cherry-picking allowed. Make it feasible for individuals to buy their own and to stick with it based on their perception of price and performance and package desired down to some minmal basic. Mandate coverage and provide tax credits based on income level to make it doable. Continue to provide a safety net for the truely poor.
Any one else have thoughts on the candidates’ positions as expressed in round three?
Preview is my freind. Remeber that. OY. Replace that paragraph please with:
"First off, Mr. President, Chiron is not a company in England. It is an American company with a factory in England. Second of all, litigation is not the main problem with flu shot production. It is a high risk and low profit business for Pharma to be in, while higher profits await them in “lifestyle drugs.” Demand is unpredictable and your inventory, which takes months to produce, is only good for the season and is then destroyed. They need a guarentee of demand before they’ll produce enough. The government needs to share the risk with them: if the CDC is pushing for all kids under two and their entire households to be vaccinated as well as all high risk adults and their households and anyone else who wants it too, then we should incentivize the manufacturers to produce enough to fulfill the demand - we will share the cost of excess inventory if we fail to deliver on the demand after we have advised it. In return we might make headway on those 36,000 or so deaths from influenza related complications every year.
Also, Mr. President, we have a crisis of uninsured Americans who end up costing us all more in the long run. We have a crisis in that the cost of employer provision of healthcare benefits is hamstringing US companies in international competion. Yes, tort reform is needed and defensive medicine drives up medical expenses dramatically, but that is only one part of the equation."
Not to get too specific, but I noticed Bush trying to make Kerry’s plan sound a great deal more scary then it is.
Bush said the plan would cost 1.2 trillion annually…but that’s pretty close to what we’re spending now AFAIK. Of course that figure includes over-the-counter stuff and we don’t know what Bush was actually referring to with his statement.
In all, I believe healthcare costs presently run five thousand and change for every American annually. Bush says Kerry’s plan will run seven thousand and change per American. It’s a big increase, but if we knock off this crap where I can’t choose my own doctor, I’m for it.
Frivolous lawsuits are a drop in the bucket in total healthcare costs, and when politicians push tort reform as a great way to lower healthcare costs they are either uninformed or pushing an agenda, knowing a lot of people will pile on when lawyers are blamed for something.
Administrative overhead is a much larger percentage of healthcare costs than the costs due to lawsuits. The Congressional Budget Office stated, “Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.” (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0)
Now, that is definitely a lot of money, but when you look at it in comparison to the 30% or more of every healthcare dollar that is spent on administrative overhead, it is definitely the wrong place to start.
Also, who is to say whether a lawsuit is frivolous? Some of those $24 billion in malpractice costs were, get this, because malpractice actually occurred and the plaintiffs were fairly awarded the money!
I know it’s hard to believe, but not every lawsuit is frivolous. That is for a judge to decide, as far as I know. You don’t eliminate frivolous lawsuits by setting a limit on payments due to lawsuits. You limit everyone who files a lawsuit, frivolous or justified, from collecting any settlement above a certain amount. Limiting settlements across the board rather than based on the actual facts of a case seems like a bad idea to me, especially when the amount that lawsuits cost the healthcare system is not nearly as much as people think and there are much better and more efficient ways to bring down costs before getting anywhere near tort reform.