Why Universal Coverage Won't Make Americans Healthier: Or 'Quality, Economical & Doable Health Insurance' (QED) & Other Oxymorons of the (Insane) Political Mind

B. P. Billauer
{"title":"Why Universal Coverage Won't Make Americans Healthier: Or 'Quality, Economical & Doable Health Insurance' (QED) & Other Oxymorons of the (Insane) Political Mind","authors":"B. P. Billauer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1028644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The political solution to our health crisis appears to be an expanded health coverage program, perhaps universal and mandatory. Increased coverage is expected to result in affordable (and available) care, which will translate into earlier diagnoses and more effective treatment, which in turn will manifest in lower national health costs. Admitting that any feasible program requires lowering health costs, the premise becomes: \"early diagnosis means lower costs.\" In essence, we plan to treat the nation's poor health based on a flawed diagnosis: lack of insurance. We presume that more care means better care; that more available care means more utilized care; and that the care will prevent the root causes of whatever ails us. Rather than focusing on lowering costs - by showering everyone with generic care and screening - our initial focus should be identifying precise causes and the best cures for the nation's illnesses - and in determining whether past data are representative of the current population and will reflect future disease mortality and morbidity Further, we amalgamate private complaints with national concerns. The private patient (voter) is dissatisfied with personal care and expensive costs. The government is dissatisfied with our nation's poor health statistics and comparatively high costs compared to other developed countries. The good politician is concerned with both. Yet, the best approaches to solving these problems are not necessarily the same. This article will illustrate how the driving causes of the nation's poor health will not be addressed by more insurance or cheaper policies. Rather, I suggest that the root-cause underlying the poor health statistics is more complex than a lack of medical ministrations. Instead, it would appear our national mortality and morbidity is a manifestation of our societal, economic and psychological standing. And these must be addressed first, if we are to achieve our due place in the health hierarchy of the world.","PeriodicalId":238933,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Delivery & Financing","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Delivery & Financing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1028644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The political solution to our health crisis appears to be an expanded health coverage program, perhaps universal and mandatory. Increased coverage is expected to result in affordable (and available) care, which will translate into earlier diagnoses and more effective treatment, which in turn will manifest in lower national health costs. Admitting that any feasible program requires lowering health costs, the premise becomes: "early diagnosis means lower costs." In essence, we plan to treat the nation's poor health based on a flawed diagnosis: lack of insurance. We presume that more care means better care; that more available care means more utilized care; and that the care will prevent the root causes of whatever ails us. Rather than focusing on lowering costs - by showering everyone with generic care and screening - our initial focus should be identifying precise causes and the best cures for the nation's illnesses - and in determining whether past data are representative of the current population and will reflect future disease mortality and morbidity Further, we amalgamate private complaints with national concerns. The private patient (voter) is dissatisfied with personal care and expensive costs. The government is dissatisfied with our nation's poor health statistics and comparatively high costs compared to other developed countries. The good politician is concerned with both. Yet, the best approaches to solving these problems are not necessarily the same. This article will illustrate how the driving causes of the nation's poor health will not be addressed by more insurance or cheaper policies. Rather, I suggest that the root-cause underlying the poor health statistics is more complex than a lack of medical ministrations. Instead, it would appear our national mortality and morbidity is a manifestation of our societal, economic and psychological standing. And these must be addressed first, if we are to achieve our due place in the health hierarchy of the world.
为什么全民医保不会让美国人更健康:或者“高质量、经济、可行的医疗保险”(QED)和(疯狂的)政治思维的其他矛盾说法
我们的健康危机的政治解决方案似乎是扩大健康覆盖计划,也许是普遍和强制性的。扩大覆盖面预计将带来负担得起的(和可用的)护理,这将转化为更早的诊断和更有效的治疗,这反过来又将体现为降低国家保健费用。承认任何可行的方案都需要降低医疗成本,前提就变成了:“早期诊断意味着降低成本。”从本质上讲,我们计划根据一个有缺陷的诊断来治疗国民健康状况不佳的问题:缺乏保险。我们认为更多的护理意味着更好的护理;更多的可用医疗意味着更多的利用医疗;而且这种护理可以防止任何困扰我们的根源。与其把重点放在降低成本上——通过向每个人提供通用护理和筛查——我们最初的重点应该是确定国家疾病的确切原因和最佳治疗方法——并确定过去的数据是否代表了当前的人口,并将反映未来的疾病死亡率和发病率。此外,我们将个人抱怨与国家关注的问题结合起来。私人病人(选民)对个人护理和昂贵的费用不满意。政府对我国糟糕的卫生统计数据和与其他发达国家相比相对较高的费用感到不满。优秀的政治家对两者都很关心。然而,解决这些问题的最佳方法不一定相同。这篇文章将说明,为什么更多的保险或更便宜的政策不能解决国民健康状况不佳的驱动原因。相反,我认为卫生统计数据不佳的根本原因比缺乏医疗服务更为复杂。相反,我们国家的死亡率和发病率似乎是我们社会、经济和心理地位的一种表现。如果我们要在世界卫生体系中取得应有的地位,就必须首先解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信