Robert Samuelson on the Health-Care Surprise | Newsweek Newsweek - Robert J. Samuelson

The point of the article is priorities. Both candidates speak of expanding health care to encompass everyone. Doing so now would be expensive, and would later develop into a crises thanks to already projected increases in cost.

Our candidates speak adamantly about expanding health care, it sells votes and it's the "right" thing to do, but realistically they should first focus on cutting cost and increasing efficiency. In other words, changing the system. Occasionally being forced to tell people that the operation with a 5% chance of success will not proceed. That definitely wouldn't sell votes, and is "wrong". So it doesn't get done.

However, increasing general efficiency is also the point of the article. Also not addressed by candidates enough because it's not as romantic as expanding health care.

Also, people point to European counterparts as examples of how Health Care could work for the US, but this is flawed for two reason. First, people are living longer. Longer life expectancy has already increased cost. Second, high taxes (and generous unemployment benefits) have depressed economic output in these countries.

Correlation (the US has a better economy) does not prove causation (the US economy is stronger because its taxes are lower) but it fits the logic of basic economics, and there is little other explanation.

And now I will predict the future. Someone will reply to my comment saying that the economies of European nations (and Canada) are superior, without providing any kind of evidence.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: lowete @ 09/17/2008 11:45:41 AM

Why is it that cutting costs and increaseing efficiency always is only directed at health care providers?
Where is the cost cutting and efficiencies from the insurance companies? They are posting record profits, while eating up half of every health care dollar. Why are they gettting a free ride, yet hospitals are closing and squeezing every dollar they can? This country should be absolutely outraged that it costs the same amount of money to actually care for a sick person as it does to process their insurance paperwork.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Generic Person @ 09/16/2008 11:44:54 AM

The point of the article is priorities. Both candidates speak of expanding health care to encompass everyone. Doing so now would be expensive, and would later develop into a crises thanks to already projected increases in cost.

Our candidates speak adamantly about expanding health care, it sells votes and it's the "right" thing to do, but realistically they should first focus on cutting cost and increasing efficiency. In other words, changing the system. Occasionally being forced to tell people that the operation with a 5% chance of success will not proceed. That definitely wouldn't sell votes, and is "wrong". So it doesn't get done.

However, increasing general efficiency is also the point of the article. Also not addressed by candidates enough because it's not as romantic as expanding health care.

Also, people point to European counterparts as examples of how Health Care could work for the US, but this is flawed for two reason. First, people are living longer. Longer life expectancy has already increased cost. Second, high taxes (and generous unemployment benefits) have depressed economic output in these countries.

Correlation (the US has a better economy) does not prove causation (the US economy is stronger because its taxes are lower) but it fits the logic of basic economics, and there is little other explanation.

And now I will predict the future. Someone will reply to my comment saying that the economies of European nations (and Canada) are superior, without providing any kind of evidence.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Aphysician @ 09/14/2008 10:21:04 PM

i