Shocker: Less Healthcare May Cost Less Money
To: Ron Brownstein and Mickey Kaus
Re: Kaus's Response to Brownstein's Article on Healthcare
You're talking past each other. Brownstein's point is to reduce the cost of a given amount of healthcare. Kaus's point is to reduce the overall cost of healthcare by discouraging utilization of healthcare. In Brownstein's article, GM is the consumer, not its employees, and it hasn't been able to reduce costs through savvy bargaining (as opposed to, say, the job Wal-Mart has done on its suppliers).
One interesting statistic from the article, though: $43bn spent for 'uncompensated care' for 45mn uninsured. I'm not sure if that means money spent in addition to whatever the uninsured were able to pay out of pocket, or the total cost of caring for them. If the latter, it's strong evidence (at less than $1000 per person per year) that lack of coverage does save money (contrary to claims that the uninsured end up costing more because they don't practice preventive medicine), and weak evidence that forcing individuals to pay out of pocket reduces costs (weak, because the uninsured are disproportionately poor. Better-off people would presumably spend more, though I don't know how much more.).
Re: Kaus's Response to Brownstein's Article on Healthcare
You're talking past each other. Brownstein's point is to reduce the cost of a given amount of healthcare. Kaus's point is to reduce the overall cost of healthcare by discouraging utilization of healthcare. In Brownstein's article, GM is the consumer, not its employees, and it hasn't been able to reduce costs through savvy bargaining (as opposed to, say, the job Wal-Mart has done on its suppliers).
One interesting statistic from the article, though: $43bn spent for 'uncompensated care' for 45mn uninsured. I'm not sure if that means money spent in addition to whatever the uninsured were able to pay out of pocket, or the total cost of caring for them. If the latter, it's strong evidence (at less than $1000 per person per year) that lack of coverage does save money (contrary to claims that the uninsured end up costing more because they don't practice preventive medicine), and weak evidence that forcing individuals to pay out of pocket reduces costs (weak, because the uninsured are disproportionately poor. Better-off people would presumably spend more, though I don't know how much more.).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home