Well, At Least The SUBJECT Is Correct (Health Care) 2013-01-11 09:21 by Karl Denninger
" . . . Now where are the real program suggestions to achieve the goal [lowering Medicare costs)?
Missing, that's where, because you can't get there from here by attacking the program and its operation. The underlying problem is in the medical system and the monopoly protections it has in law as a whole, not medical "entitlement" spending.
This is very similar to the "gun control" debate arising from Sandy Hook; indeed, it is effectively identical in form and fashion. It's a diversion and a scam to avoid discussion and debate of where the problem lies.
Post Sandy Hook the discussion has all been about "Guns." The problem isn't guns, exactly as the problem isn't Medicare or Medicaid when it comes to "entitlement" spending.
The problem with "entitlement spending" is the medical system as a whole; it is the monopoly protections and cost-shifting that has led to the explosion in medical spending.
Here are several examples of what our current medical system produces:
Juanita the illegal Mexican immigrant comes into the country 7 months pregnant with a history of alcohol and drug abuse. She has never seen a doctor during her pregnancy. She goes into labor 2 months premature . . . When you subsequently show up with an acute need to have your appendix removed the cost is $20,000 instead of $2,000, because the hospital must somehow cover the care it was forced to provide to Juanita and her newborn or it will go out of business. In every other nation if you tried this you'd be lucky to not be deported before you could actually give birth and in no case would you be able to foist this expense off on the taxpayers.
Canada tells Pfizer that it will only pay $2 per tablet for Viagra. . . . But in the United States Pfizer then amortizes the entire development cost of the drug on our backs, using the backing of the government to prohibit anyone from bringing the drug back into the US, even though it's authentic and made in Pfizer plants, to protect the US price.
The result is that we wind up paying for the development of every new drug and device treatment modality and the rest of the world consumes those modalities at reproduction cost. This can only happen with explicit government protection. The medical industry claims that if you didn't have these protections their business would collapse. The truth is a bit more complex -- if Pfizer had to go to Canada and tell them "yes, you could break our patents, but if you do we will not be able to develop these drugs, and thus there will nothing for you to steal" then the market would resolve the issue.
Costs in other parts of the world would rise but they would plummet in the United States -- perhaps as much as 80%!
[li]EMTALA (a Reagan-era law) says that if you are in acute medical distress the closest facility that can effectively treat you must do so, irrespective of your ability to pay or insurance status. This law effectively shut down charity care in the United States, with the exception of places like St. Jude's which treat serious but not emergent conditions. The consequence of the "no turn away" policy ensconced in the law is that indigent people flood emergency rooms across the country, driving costs through the ceiling -- and since they don't have any money, can't pay and can't be turned away you get the bill.
There are literally dozens of additional examples . . . We refuse to deal with the real issue that is driving these costs and which will destroy the nation . . . To America and our lawmakers: STOP CODDLING THE DAMNED MEDICAL INDUSTRY."