Health & Fitness >
Health Care
RSS FeedWould consumer-control or government-control reduce health care costs more?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Consumer | 62% | 37 votes | Total: 60 votes | |
| Government | 38% | 23 votes |
Consumer
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe consumer is the best fit to control the cost of health care. Unfortunately people will always need health care and that is the only reason that the Government would be better fit to reduce the overall health care costs. Consumer control is by far the most effective and efficient way to reduce health care cost because with out the "consumer" to purchase things there would not be any demand for those items. Leading back to a simple supply and demand equation. If you feel that your health insurance is too high, you need to express your concerns to your health insurance company. If you have done that and you still feel that nothing is being done, you need to think about changing health insurance company's. Again this logic goes back to supply and demand. If you want lower gas prices, avoid the largest petroleum producers at all costs, they will loose business and in turn have to lower prices to get people in the door. Once they lower prices others will need to lower their prices to compete in the market. The same rule applies to health care. If you feel that the costs are too high, call around, see what kind of a break you may be able to get by visiting a smaller local doctor rather than going to the biggest hospital in the city. Just like the gas, we need it! That does not mean though that we should not try to get the best price we can on that necessary service or product. The government may need to step in a little and help nudge the market in the right direction, just as I feel they should do with many other consumer staples. But a nudge is all that they need to do. Getting the government too involved in the market will then start to create a very scary situation. For example if the Government takes control of health care and decides to "lower the cost of health care", this may lead to cutting hours available to doctors or wages for nurses, the most vital and necessary instruments of this industry. By lowering the wages and cutting hours think of what would happen... A doctor is in an operating room in the middle of open heart surgery, it's your mother or father on the table, now that the government has taken control of health care, that doctor can only put in a certain amount of hours per week or per day. His time for the week is up in the middle of the surgery, he puts down the knife and walks away from the table with your mother or father wide open. Who knows if there will be another doctor coming in to finish the procedure because the hospital may have "spent" all of their alloted "doctor time" on previous patients that day or week. Now your parent dies because some bureaucrat decided XYZ hospital is only allowed a certain number of doctor hours per week, for the sake of "controlling health care costs". In conclusion the Government is not best fit to control our health care costs, we the people are, we just need to be informed and act collectively. Tell all of your friends and family, they need to be informed too!
Learn more about this author, kcdc.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Government
I really don't see how this can possibly be a debate. All it takes is a look at statistical comparisons of public and private systems to reveal the answer.
In the United States, where health care is primarily a private-sector operation, health expenditures per capita for the year 2004 were US$6,102, according to data from the Commonwealth Fund. By comparison, expenditures in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which have public healthcare, were US$2,546 and US$2,083, respectively.
And it's not as though the US is receiving better healthcare than other nations. The the previously mentioned Commonwealth Fund study ranked six nations on a number of different factors and then gave each an overall rank. In order from highest ranked to lowest, they are as follows: UK, Germany, New Zealand/Australia (tie), Canada, US. As you can see, the US placed last overall, and it had last or second-to-last rankings in all but one category.
If the United States isn't getting better healthcare, then why does it cost so much more than other nations? One of the answers may lie in administrative costs. According to a study by the Harvard Medical School, administrative costs account for 31% of health care expenditures, as opposed to 16.7% in Canada. It should be noted that these two nations were ranked least and second-least efficient by the Commonwealth Fund, meaning that other nations would likely have even lower administrative costs. Further highlighting this is an article by Krugman and Wells that reports that administrative costs for the US' Medicare system are 2%, as opposed to the private insurance industry's 13%.
Another reason for higher costs in the US is the use of unscrupulous tactics by hospitals and insurance companies to inflate costs. A stay in a hospital costs more than in a five-star hotel, patients are often billed many times the actual cost of a medication, and charges for lab tests are many times what they should be. Hospital rooms shouldn't cost $3,000 per day, aspirins shouldn't cost $10 apiece, and x-rays shouldn't be $500. These are just a few examples of the ridiculous price-gouging that occurs in the private health care industry.
Based on all of these facts, it should be quite clear that a government-controlle d health care system would significantly reduce costs, making health care affordable for all. While any system will have its faults, a large majority are better served by government health care systems than they are by private-sector health care. It is not fair to a person for a hospital to put a lien against everything they own to pay for a life-saving operation. What is the point in saving a life if you will then finacially destroy it? Financial worries should never be a factor in health care decisions. Such situations often lead to higher costs in the end, as a minor condition that would be easily (and cheaply) treated may escalate into a major problem that requires invasive surgery.
Health care must be affordable to all, and the only way to accomplish this is through stricter government control of costs.
Learn more about this author, Daniel Summerset.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Health Care
- Should Congress expand existing government health programs to help the uninsured?
- Is Michael Moore right about the US health care system?
- Should health care be controlled by the government or by patients?
- Should each generation save for their own retirement health care needs?
- Does Medicare's crackdown on doctors' profits help or hurt patients?
- HillaryCare and RomneyCare offer variations of a failed health care system
