By Cliff Montgomery – Sept. 8th, 2009
A very interesting health care report was issued on July 29th by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). It reminds us of the folly in trusting that any form of private insurance can, or will, solve our broken health care system.
For instance, it reveals that “insurance coverage and access to health care are not the same, and it is possible to have one without the other. Having coverage does not ensure that one can pay for care, nor does it always shield one from significant financial loss in the case of serious illness.”
The American Spark offers quotes from the CRS study below:
“Health care reform is a major issue in the 111th Congress, driven by growing concern about millions of people without insurance coverage, continual increases in cost and spending, and quality shortcomings.
“Commonly cited figures indicate that more than 45 million people have no insurance, which can limit their access to care and ability to pay for the care they receive. Costs are rising for nearly everyone, and the country now likely spends over $2.5 trillion, more than 17% of gross domestic product (GDP), on health care services and products, far more than other industrialized countries.
“For all this spending, the country scores but average or somewhat worse on many indicators of health care quality, and many may not get appropriate standards of care.
“These concerns raise significant challenges. Each is more complex than might first appear, which increases the difficulty of finding solutions.
“For example, by one statistical measure, far more than 45 million people face the risk of being uninsured for short time periods, yet by another, substantially fewer have no insurance for long periods.
“Insurance coverage and access to health care are not the same, and it is possible to have one without the other. Having coverage does not ensure that one can pay for care, nor does it always shield one from significant financial loss in the case of serious illness.
“Similarly, high levels of spending may be partly attributable to the country’s wealth, while rising costs, though difficult for many, may primarily mean that less money is available for other things.”
“How much reform might cost and how to pay for it is also an issue.
“Health care reform proposals rekindle debate over perennial issues in American health care policy. These include whether insurance should be public or private, whether employment-based insurance should be strengthened, weakened, or left alone, what role states might play, and whether Medicaid should be folded into new insurance arrangements. Whether changes to Medicare should occur at the same time is also being considered.
“Concerns about coverage, cost and spending, and quality are likely to be addressed within the context of these issues.”
There are a few errors of judgment in the CRS report, which can be pointed out quickly enough. Two of them are discussed in the statement below. They are the most typical fallacies in conservative thinking on the subject of a public option:
“Solutions to these concerns may conflict with one another. For example, expanding coverage to most of the uninsured would likely drive up costs (as more people seek care) and expand public budgets (since additional public subsidies would be required).”
The basic notion behind both arguments is that a truly comprehensive plan that makes health care cheap enough for everyone will still drive up long-term costs.
Both of these statements are disproven by the report’s own admission of the vast price difference between American health care (which does not cover all its citizens with a government-run health care system) and the health care system of every other modern, industrialized country on earth (which enjoys such a publicly-run system).
The CRS study admits:
“[U.S.] Costs are rising for nearly everyone, and the country now likely spends over $2.5 trillion, more than 17% of gross domestic product (GDP), on health care services and products, far more than other industrialized countries.”
“For all this spending, the country scores but average or somewhat worse on many indicators of health care quality, and many may not get appropriate standards of care,” adds the report.
The U.S. system is driven by the profits of corporations which hold a near-monopoly on their part of the health care pie – this immediately drives up the price of everything from drugs to insurance policies. Hence cash-strapped American citizens often do not visit their doctor until a sickness reaches crisis proportions–which makes an already costly treatment even more expensive.
Conversely, though it’s true that the citizens of every other industrialized nation visit the doctor more often, the cheaper, more comprehensive government-run system encourages an early, preventative care. This means that medical problems are treated long before they become serious ailments–which makes an already inexpensive treatment even cheaper.
