[PEN-L:9500] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Shades of Summers

[frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Ellen Frank)]

The problem with all these health care discussions
is that they equate cost to service and
service to consumer demand.  There seems
a near conspiracy of silence on the
provider side of the equation.
	A few years back,
I played around with some stats on this and
found that physician earnings rose 40% on average
in the 1980s.  They have continued
to rise since then, though not at that fast
a rate, as have drug company profits
and HMO and insurance  company
earnings.
	 If the US were to switch tomorrow
to a single-payer system, the problem would
not be dealing with hypochondriacs and
Munchausen-sufferers.  The problem
would be controlling over-billing,
over-prescribing, kickbacks and self-
referral systems.
	These are a huge problems for
both Medicare and Medicaid.  And frankly,
though I am no fan of the insurance industry,
it's a huge problem for them.
	
		Ellen Frank


pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>Max:
>> >In the U.S., if we universalized a system where health
>> >care was "free," we would see greater increases in the
>> >share of GDP devoted to health care.  This ought to
>> >raise a concern about whether the foregone output might
>> >have been more worthwhile....
>> >Socialists have to ration too.
>> >
>> >mbs
>
>
>In the mid 1990s there were several interesting radical
>poli-econ arguments about the basis for massive increases
>in healthcare costs/GDP. O'Connor did a great paper that partly
>attributed cost increases to quality increases and longevity; Navarro
>argued also I think correctly that the massive overburdening of
>health administrative systems during the 1990s coincided with the
>fragmentation/diversification of private care and the growing role of
>admin-intensive insurance companies/HMOs. I would add that there was
>dramatic overaccumulation of capital, in a very classical marxian
>sense, in the private US health system.
>