It Won’t

We have a surprising lack of data to back up many of the claims regarding health care reform. John Stossel calls it:

I keep reading about health-care “reform,” but I have yet to see anyone explain how the government can make it easier for more people to obtain medical services, control the already exploding cost of those services, and not interfere with people’s most intimate decisions.

3 thoughts on “It Won’t

  1. Has Stossel been listening to anything but the echo chamber of his own mind?

    1. Easier to obtain medical services: public option would cover more people, make it easier for them to seek care when they need it. Ending exclusions for pre-existing coverage increases access for millions private insurers currently won’t touch.
    2. Control exploding costs: introduce a public option, and you increase competition in an increasingly monopolized private market that has consolidated and fought any competition. Big public option creates big pool with more negotiating power.
    3. No interference with intimate medical decisions: oh, yeah, kind of like how private insurers never interfere with your choice of doctor, medication, or procedure. Utterly false argument from Stossel.

  2. Miranda,

    Thanks.

    CAH,

    You would need to ask John about his own mind, but I’ll give you a few thoughts from mine.

    1. A public option would make it easier, in theory, for more people to seek care. The problem is that if they had no direct cost to them, they would seek care whether they need it or not. Making something “free” tends to drive up the demand rather sharply.
    2. Bringing the government in with a public option does not increase competition by any stretch of the imagination. A public option created by those who define what it and is not an appropriate level of coverage is a monopoly. Big public option creates a big pool with no need to negotiate because it has the power of law (and lawmakers) behind it.
    3. Well, the argument was not that there is no interference now, was it? The argument was that these things cannot be done without interfering in people’s “most intimate decisions.” A phrase, which I understand to be more along the lines of determining end of life issues rather than whether one uses doctor A instead of doctor B.

Comments are closed.