Health Reform: Throwing Good Money After Bad
Here are a few lines I couldn't help but quote:
Alone among advanced countries, we treat health care like a market commodity to
be distributed according to the ability to pay, not like a social service to be
distributed according to medical need.
Surely this is the root of the problem...the root that is so deep and so well protected that nothing much short of an atom bomb will dislodge it...
Dr. Angell concludes her piece with these two paragraphs.
In economic terms, health care is a highly successful industry -- profitable,
growing, and virtually recession-proof -- but it's a massive burden on the rest
of the economy. I'm aware that phasing out private insurers would mean a loss of
jobs. But I believe the job loss in that sector would be more than offset by job
gains in the rest of the economy, which would no longer be saddled with the
exorbitant costs of an industry that offers very little of value to justify its
existence. (Emphasis mine.)
One thing is certain: We need a complete overhaul of our health system.
Tinkering at the edges won't do it. Expanding coverage through government
subsidies and mandates, as advocated by the president, won't either. Besides
being a windfall for insurers and drug companies, that approach will just add to
our soaring costs and be a temporary fix, at best. In my opinion, it makes no
sense to throw good money after bad.
Is there a way to amplify this informed, reasonable voice loud enough to drown out the dittoheads?