 |
 |
The problem is that we try to apply a simple solution to complex problem. When to US Government became the guaranteed source if health care for the aged it drastically changed health care for that segment of the population. It no longer was a personal or business problem it became a Government problem. Big industry could pass most of their retiree health care cost to HICFA and buy supplemental policies. The tax provided the source of funds and the health care industry could be assured of payment for service. The old system, rationed health care based on $$ and relationships. The new system treats all the same, all patients, regardless of ability to pay, and all providers, regardless of expense to provide. Care is more uniform and charges are more uniform. The providers financial aids learn the system and maximize the return for the service time and talent. The rules and regulations in this system are complex and extensive presumably to prevent fraud, but often written into law to serve a special interest. [By my estimate the current system has 20% to 25% too much administrative cost and too little audit.] A drug benefit would work the same way. You get a system that will treat patients in a uniform manner and the drug producers will give us products that are high cost and low results, because that is what the system will reward. That in addition to high administrative costs. If we had a system that would help the impoverished people and produce drugs that are low cost and high results then you have good system. A system that lets the drug companies recover a significant part of their R&D costs from the government as tax breaks or refunds for products that get to market would give that result. In return the company would set a more modest price on the product. Because initial selling prices would be lower the competition would be to produce better solutions not knock-offs to compete for market share. [ We have model for this type of system in the area of national defense, weapons development. a workable system that is heavily audited ]. Regards, Bill Lawless [Ergo hoc, ergo propter hoc!] a logical fallacy. Original Message ----- From: Robert A. Fink, M. D. To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:06 PM Subject: Re: The Government should pay for it??? Date sent: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:23:13 -0400 Send reply to: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network <[log in to unmask]> From: WILL JOHNSTON <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: The Government should pay for it??? To: [log in to unmask] > Medicare has done a wonderful job for our senior and disabled > population. Before July 1, 1966 the medical establishment just let > that population suffer and die. Look at the change in mortality! I agree. But the insurance companies, under the guise of "managed care" are turning these advances around. In our area, the number of seniors who are finding their Medicare-Plus plans going south is increasing progressively. I do not fear the Government; I fear the big insurance companies with their executives and their 7-figure incomes. Best, Bob ********************************************** Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 WWW: http://www.rafink.com/ mailto:[log in to unmask] "Ex Tristitia Virtus" ********************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn