Medical tourism creates competition for U.S. health care providers--It's a good thing

The Economist tells a story of globalization and market forces that should serve as a wake up call to the U.S. health care system.

When you view the chart of costs that U.S. patients pay compared to patients in other countries, then you may have difficulty justifying the usual refrain of "we have better care here, despite the costs."

Cost creates competition between U.S. health care and foreign systems.

It's about time.

It will take U.S. health care providers screaming about their lost profits before they get on board with socialized insurance. There's only so much fear-mongering about foreign health care people will stand. Once enough people receive quality treatment overseas, a tipping point will occur where it becomes standard for the middle class and the poor (the ones who support the health care system now) to leave the country for treatment.

Socialized insurance creates a dis-incentive for people to go elsewhere since they can be assured of treatment at home.

Socialized Health Insurance is a wildly popular idea that could be doomed by inertia

Here's an article by Paul Krugman laying out the issues related to universal health care.

I think Paul is on target. I agree with what he says.

He makes the point that Republicans have for too long bristled at the notion of universal health care as "socialized medicine." This is true. He doesn't make the same distinction between socialized medicine and socialized insurance that I do, but he does allude to it.

Here's my previous posting about it.

CDC reports that ER waits growing longer--We need to change the incentives

Here's yet another statistic that points to a broken health care system.

The free market approach to saving lives currently used is failing miserably.

Furthermore, it's immoral to place people's lives at risk for the sake of profit. Why is that ignored in the calculus?

We need socialized health insurance.

We could even throw some incentives in, like capping malpractice claims for doctors who treat those for covered medical procedures and expenses. Such a plan would incentive-ize doctors and hospitals to provide as many covered services as possible to get the liability shield.

Socialized health insurance should not be conflated with Socialized Medicine

Just a note on the state of our health care system.

I frequently speak of socialized health insurance. Some, especially those opposing anything with the word "social" in it conflate socialized insurance with socialized medicine.

The two are mutually exclusive. Both may travel together like they do in the British health care system, but they are not required to do so.

Socialized health insurance doesn't make doctors or hospitals employees of the government, whereas socialized medicine does.

My advocacy of socialized health insurance derives from a serious and significant problem common in capitalistic systems: Externalization of Costs.

Our current health care system externalizes the cost of providing care to poor and under-insureds to the rest of the system. They do this by increasing costs to those that can pay.

My position on health care has a moral component, but more importantly is economic. Morally, is it proper to harm a segment of the population and to charge the remainder more for health care than is necessary? I think not.

The costs of providing health care cannot be avoided forever and to best deal with those costs, it is better to manage them from a proactive stance of socializing them rather than using the current ad hoc approach.

Ad hoc approaches are not cost-effective due to inefficiencies that inevitably creep in. Ad hoc approaches still socializes the costs, so why not get control of those from the outset rather than letting the chips fall where they may...to great and unnecessary expense?

If we can reduce by 20% or more health care costs for the country as a whole through socializing insurance for basic and preventative care, then we're doing everyone a favor. It's the fiscally conservative thing to do.

My proposal allows people to maintain private insurance and allows doctors and hospitals to work for themselves instead of the government.

I challenge anyone to call my plan socialized medicine. It isn't.

I also challenge anyone claiming to be a fiscal conservative to continue advocating a system that adds upwards of 20% to the cost of health care for no apparent reason other than to give windfalls to doctors and hospitals while letting insurance companies off the hook.

We need socialized health insurance

Slate reports on the economic incentives that hospitals have to shaft the poor.

The current problem with our health care system is thus: The system is designed around profitability. There's no profit in treating people who have little to no money.

Our system is also designed to reward doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies.

This begs the question: At whose expense?

Well, at the expense of those least capable of paying.

Our system is in dire need of overhaul. The doctors will fight it along with insurance companies and hospitals.

We have a moral obligation to treat everyone fairly instead of just those with the means to afford insurance or health care.

Personally, I think we should have a system that provides basic coverage for all, funded by government run insurance. This would allow better preventative care and reduce reliance of E.R. care by those without coverage or means.

The cost-benefit analysis bears this out when you compare the actual cost of care in countries with some form of socialized health insurance (not the same as socialized medicine).

The final dilemma is this: Is it moral to reward doctors, hospitals and insurance companies at the expense of the poor? Or, is it moral to treat everyone fairly?