Obama's promise that the government will pay for universal healthcare by pushing for more preventative healthcare options is nonsensical, as is the idea that any government run program will be more efficient than a market driven one.
This is false. I have been in the health care industry, and it does not run towards efficiency, it runs towards greed and profit. Sometimes this leads to efficiency, but with the health care it leads to double-digit increases in plan rates for the last 7 years.
The "efficiency" you speak of is brought about by cutting costs, generally speaking. In the health care industry, this is done by cutting benefits, cutting payouts, and cutting coverage. Companies INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY stop covering people because they are "high risk", or if they simply cost the company too much. They have admitted as much, and have said they'd do it again.
As for the efficiency/middlemen argument: Explain to me how efficiency brings about peer review companies, who's sole job is to provide insurance companies with panels of doctors to review cases to prove that the case is not or should not be covered by insurance.
Less government is not always the answer. The Obama plan might not be the right answer either, but the health care industry is very much broken right now, and seriously so.
no subject
Obama's promise that the government will pay for universal healthcare by pushing for more preventative healthcare options is nonsensical, as is the idea that any government run program will be more efficient than a market driven one.
This is false. I have been in the health care industry, and it does not run towards efficiency, it runs towards greed and profit. Sometimes this leads to efficiency, but with the health care it leads to double-digit increases in plan rates for the last 7 years.
The "efficiency" you speak of is brought about by cutting costs, generally speaking. In the health care industry, this is done by cutting benefits, cutting payouts, and cutting coverage. Companies INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATELY stop covering people because they are "high risk", or if they simply cost the company too much. They have admitted as much, and have said they'd do it again.
As for the efficiency/middlemen argument: Explain to me how efficiency brings about peer review companies, who's sole job is to provide insurance companies with panels of doctors to review cases to prove that the case is not or should not be covered by insurance.
Less government is not always the answer. The Obama plan might not be the right answer either, but the health care industry is very much broken right now, and seriously so.