Originally Posted by
Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2459722
I think more people in the system would bring costs down because the costs would be more spread out, which is why groups get lower rates than individuals. This is not as simple as a supply vs demand graph. Now if more people were sick than healthy.. it may cause a problem...
Obama claims his plan will cost everybody less $. In order to guarantee lower rates...the govenemnt will have to regulate the ENTIRE industry..... usage, ration care, price regulation, etc, etc.
Your comment states what happens if people are sick? They'll simply have to raise more taxes to cover....or regulate the entrie industry. They'll have to most likely do both.
Government regulation of ANY industry has not been too successfull.
Galen Institute...looks dead on regarding government run healthcare
State-administered systems always fall victim to laws of supply and demand. In a healthy marketplace, consumers determine what they’re willing to pay. But in a price-controlled system, bureaucrats and politicians make those decisions instead.
Case in point: Two new "wonder drugs" with the potential to prolong the lives of thousands of kidney cancer sufferers are being denied to British patients because they are too expensive.
The drugs have proven to shrink tumors dramatically, with some disappearing altogether. The drugs have been licensed for safety, but the British government agency that approves payment for new drugs so far has declined approval.
In the interest of national budgets, state-administered health systems have an incentive to put saving money before lives.
This creates a serious discrepancy between what’s needed and what’s provided – including the ratio of doctors to patients. Japan, for example, spends only about half as much of its gross domestic product on health care as the United States. But the resulting low salaries that doctors receive have caused a deadly shortage of cancer specialists in a country where the disease is the leading cause of death.
Government decisions can also have a dampening effect on progress and innovation. In 1993, for example, the Clinton administration proposed a plan to control prices on so-called “breakthrough” drugs. These are the innovative drugs that offer important new treatments but which are so new, they don’t yet have any competitors.
Not surprisingly, the two years after her price control plan was announced saw substantial declines in the growth of drug research and development. It wasn’t until after the Clinton plan was defeated that investment in pharmaceutical research and development began to return to previous levels.
In other words, when the government gets its hands on drug pricing, drug creation takes a hit. Never mind those who desperately await the invention of the next miracle cure.
The best health care decisions are made by patients and their doctors -- not by the government. That’s why the solution to America’s health care costs doesn’t lie with expanded public programs. Instead, it lies with creating a uniquely American system grounded in proper greater incentives, more affordable choices, and expanded access to care and coverage.
