Comment on "Innovate to cut health costs"
Comments will close in two days.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- UCLA losing big at halftime - The Fabulous Forum 11/26/2009, 9:17 p.m.
- Broncos get back on winning track - L.A. Times - Sports 11/26/2009, 8:37 p.m.
- Motorcyclist killed in 100-mph crash on 101 - L.A. Now 11/26/2009, 8:34 p.m.
- UCLA basketball: Dragovic in uniform - The Fabulous Forum 11/26/2009, 8:17 p.m.
- Villaraigosa heads to Mexico for cultural event and business meetings - L.A. Now 11/26/2009, 8:09 p.m.
Save more than
Ms. Svorny talks of universal health care and de-regulation as if they were incompatible. In fact, what we have now is mostly private health care along with strict regulations. With a single-payer system (Ms. Svorny seems to confuse the terms "single payer" and "universal health care" as if they were the same,which they are not), there could easily be mandated de-regulation, or less strict regulation, allowing nurse practitioners, physicians" assistants or others to treat minor conditions.
dmgmd43 @ 11:32 AM PDT, Oct 7, 2008
If the government would just spend 700 billion dollars on health care instead of bailing out the banks, then we'd have the money for higher reimbursements. Which would mean everyone is happy. Universal healthcare and insurance costs go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other due to the extraordinarily high costs of healthcare. They're not missing the point at all. Why should we strive to make those who are taking care of our health less educated? America strives to be the best. This is done by raising the standard. NOT by lowering them.
No on deregulation @ 10:09 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
I'd also suggest that people can buy insurance from other states. More competition, lower price. We should let pharmacists, nurses, chiropractors, physician assistants, and such health professionals to have greater authority to take care of patients. We should also reject any attempt from any of these health care organizations to reduce the licenses or to make those licenses harder to obtain.
Askar Tamana @ 9:39 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
Yeah, I'm getting really tired of the LA Times' editorial board. You guys stink. I expect this kind of blind foolishness from Gregory Rodriguez, but this is just sad. The problem is that 'deregulation' doesn't mean anything, and lowering educational standards might make sense in some cases but not at all in the ones the author mentioned. Oh, I know, lets let anyone with a BA hand out penicillin at Wal-Mart! Then health care with be really cheap (and really bad). Thanks LA Times.
David Selby @ 7:03 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
Why stop at reducing the educational requirement for people dispensing medical advice at a masters degree? Why not do away with educational requirements at all? Afterall, who needs qualified medical care? While we're at it, we should allow people to practice law without first passing the BAR or let people design aircraft without first studying engineering. This is the same kind of thinking that has Sarah Palin as a serious candidate for VP.
Mike Curtis @ 5:10 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
The government systems cited (Canada, Europe) all reduce costs by rationing care. They have formulas, based upon age/ life expectancy after care/cost benefit of care that determine when an individual is a candidate and therefore will receive care. Canadian's come to America for care because of the restrictions they have on receiving rationed care and the long wait lines when they are eligible for care. Read Victor Fuch's book, "Who Shall Live." Are you ready to say no to care for your loved one when you do not fit the rationing criteria for care under the government system? That is how a national health care system saves.
Terry Smith @ 2:46 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
More libertarian nonsense. They'll do to healthcare what they've done to the financial sector. Svorny is calling for unschooled, unqualified, inexperienced people to dispense medical care at Wal-Mart. Seriously? It sounds like a proposal for a third world country, not America.
Not Naive @ 2:36 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
Regarding the person from England, England has socialized medicine which is not what most European countries and Canada have. American advocates of universal health care are speaking of a single payer system, not socialized medicine.
Judy Rutherford @ 2:03 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
I believe most of you are missing the point. What Svorny is advocating is deregulation of Healthcare, not Health Insurance. Health Insurance is the financing part. You can do away with all the insurance companies, and a Tonsilectomy will still be $6000. The clinics within the drug store are becoming more and more acceptable. However, at $59 per visit, there are some of you who think it should be $10. Remember, even without the insurance companies, there is still the need for profit in Healthcare, or nobody survives.
Anthony W. Halby @ 1:19 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
Professor Svorny is wrong. We rank at the bottom of industrialized countries on most population health indicators. We have 45 million people without insurance. Continuing this system will not work. The Democratic proposals offer the best approach. Not government provided health care, but a government insurance system for those who cannot get private insurance. Such a system would cost less, provide better medical care, and not stifle innovation. The problems Professor Svorny raises are associated with government provided care systems. Those systems still have better health care indicators than our own supposedly superior system.
Gary Spivey @ 12:30 PM PDT, Oct 6, 2008
Next