Re: The Government should pay for it???

[Bill Lawless <wlawless3@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The problem is that we try to apply a simple solution to complex problem.

When to US Government became the guaranteed source if health care for the aged 
it drastically changed health care for that segment of the population. It no 
longer was a personal or business problem it became a Government problem. Big 
industry could pass most of their retiree health care cost to HICFA and buy 
supplemental policies. The tax provided the source of funds and the health care 
industry could be assured of payment for service. The old system, rationed 
health care based on $$ and relationships. The new system treats all the same, 
all patients, regardless of ability to pay, and all providers, regardless of 
expense to provide.

Care is more uniform and charges are more uniform. The providers financial aids 
learn the system and maximize the return for the service time and talent. The 
rules and regulations in this system are complex and extensive presumably to 
prevent fraud, but often written into law to serve a special interest. [By my 
estimate the current system has 20% to 25% too much administrative cost and too 
little audit.]

A drug benefit would work the same way.  You get a system that will treat 
patients in a uniform manner and the drug producers will give us products that 
are high cost and low results, because that is what the system will reward. 
That in addition to high administrative costs.

 If we had a system that would help the impoverished  people and produce drugs 
that are low cost and high results then you have good system. A system that 
lets the drug companies recover a significant part of their R&D costs from the 
government as tax breaks or refunds for products that get to market  would give 
that result. In return the company would set a more modest price on the 
product. Because initial selling prices would be lower the competition would be 
to produce better solutions not knock-offs to compete for market share. [ We 
have model for this type of system in the area of national defense, weapons 
development. a workable system that is heavily audited ].

Regards, Bill Lawless
[Ergo hoc, ergo propter hoc!] a logical fallacy.
 Original Message -----
  From: Robert A. Fink, M. D.
  To: PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 8:06 PM
  Subject: Re: The Government should pay for it???


  Date sent:              Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:23:13 -0400
  Send reply to:          Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
  <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  From:                   WILL JOHNSTON <johnston@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Subject:                Re: The Government should pay for it???
  To:                     PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  > Medicare has done a wonderful job for our senior and disabled
  > population. Before July 1, 1966 the medical establishment just let
  > that population suffer and die.  Look at the change in mortality!

  I agree.  But the insurance companies, under the guise of "managed
  care" are turning these advances around.  In our area, the number of
  seniors who are finding their Medicare-Plus plans going south is
  increasing progressively.  I do not fear the Government; I fear the
  big insurance companies with their executives and their 7-figure
  incomes.

  Best,

  Bob

  **********************************************
  Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C.
  2500 Milvia Street  Suite 222
  Berkeley, California  94704-2636
  Telephone:  510-849-2555   FAX:  510-849-2557
  WWW:  

  

  "Ex Tristitia Virtus"

  *********************************************

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
  In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: 
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn