John McCain recently wrote this:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would
provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by
the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

After the last week perhaps he has changed his mind.


http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf

There is no correlation between the two........nice try but no cigar....

I think he is right on !!! Why do you believe it wont work???

Originally Posted by The Great Fumar

There is no correlation between the two........nice try but no cigar....

Please someone go over to Fumar's place a take those funny cigarettes he's been smoking away.


Or perhaps he hasn't been watching the news over the last week.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I think he is right on !!! Why do you believe it wont work???

In a word no....I have worked in that industry for 25+ years...Right now I work for a major manufacturer of Laboratory equipment. Healthcare has been hit heard by managed care...That was supposed to hold down costs...but the way the HMO's hold down cost is to limit access, limit care and give the profits to CEO's.

I could tell you stories....I think it would be the end to healthcare in the US.

Just look at the industries that have been deregulated.....

The Airline Industry....Its a mess and I fly usually everyweek twice a week.
The Energy Utilities.....The rates went through the roof and then we had Enron.
The Mortgage and Banking Industry.....Check out last week.

Don't you remember that one of the biggest back dating of stock options was at United Healthcare... I'll give you a link....

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/41791.aspx

Nicely done Cologal!!! I agree it would not be a good idea....it's bad enough as it is!

I would certainly step aside for a professional like Cologal. I will admit that I know very very little, but in general am against anything that gives us more government involvement since we keep complaining about how they screw things up but believe they should be in charge of more which doesnt make sense. I also am opposed to raising taxes anymore.

The link below seems to be quite straightforward and non partisan. Asking Cologal when she can to advise if that is a good source and if she has any others.

I am always willing to learn and accept new things...that is why I spelled out my very basic two objections at the begininng so that you can address !


http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...care-policies/

Originally Posted by cologal

John McCain recently wrote this:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would
provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by
the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

After the last week perhaps he has changed his mind.


http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf

Perhaps a review of the business practices the state government employ upon themselves is a good place to look at how state "regulation" works. There are darned few states which can balance budgets without multi-point tax increases, and no standards of performance ever seem to be levied against how they do things.

I'm not saying that some regulation is not necessary - but what kind? Is the regulation to provide a performance standard for types of care? or a formula to measure costs (and subsequent profit)? or to detemrine distribution of products/services? or to determine individual/company qualifications to dispense certain types of care? or to levy reporting requirements for specific data only wanted by government?

"Regulation" covers a lot of area, and to de-regulate certain elements (such as some arcane reporting requirements or distribution scheme not in line with today's technology) is only good sense.

Before we get upset of "de-regulation," let's first examine which regulation and what it covers is being targeted for extinction or amendment. It's not always a bad idea.

I have been in the health care industry for more years than I care to count, and it works just the opposite. The way socialized medicine, such as you find in Canada, keeps costs down, is to ration care. Last I looked the average wait time for a CT in the city of Toronto is in excess of 90 days. The average time to be treated by a specialist is in the neighborhood of 6 months. It is the only way you can keep costs down when the care is "free".

Originally Posted by Number 6

I have been in the health care industry for more years than I care to count, and it works just the opposite. The way socialized medicine, such as you find in Canada, keeps costs down, is to ration care. Last I looked the average wait time for a CT in the city of Toronto is in excess of 90 days. The average time to be treated by a specialist is in the neighborhood of 6 months. It is the only way you can keep costs down when the care is "free".

I have a dear friend in Canada and she went through more testing than our insurance in this country would even allow. And her CT Scan wait was only 3 weeks. Guess what! I made an appointment to see a doctor in The Villages at the beginning of Sept. and I can't see him until Oct. 8th! Don't be misleading!

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I have a dear friend in Canada and she went through more testing than our insurance in this country would even allow. And her CT Scan wait was only 3 weeks. Guess what! I made an appointment to see a doctor in The Villages at the beginning of Sept. and I can't see him until Oct. 8th! Don't be misleading!

All of the regulations in the world will not make more "supply" than there is "demand."

Wherever the "supply" side of a service industry (and medical care is personal service) is regulated as to access to it, the compensation received by the provider, and quantum of service to be received, the result is fewer people want to become service-providers and the quality of the service providers deteriorates ("just ain't worth the money for the cost to get qualified").

"Regulating" any industry is a delicate balancing act - insuring the public access to the service while insuring availability of quality service.

I am interested to know how people think "deregulation" will enhance our health care sytem/coverage. In what areas? For which people/patients? What parts of our system that are "regulated" do you see a problem with, and how will deregulation solve those problems? How will this concept improve areas of our system such as access to care, affordability for the poor, plans for people with pre-existing conditions?

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

I am interested to know how people think "deregulation" will enhance our health care sytem/coverage. In what areas? For which people/patients? What parts of our system that are "regulated" do you see a problem with, and how will deregulation solve those problems? How will this concept improve areas of our system such as access to care, affordability for the poor, plans for people with pre-existing conditions?

Great questions Serenityseeker. Let's see if you get any answers?

thanx chels,

doesnt look like much response though huh?

The part of the healthcare system that McCain is talking about is the insurance industry. I believe what he wants to do is break down the state barriers that currently exist that prohibit insurance companies from competing on a national scale. I recently looked into insurance for two states - NJ and VA. The amount that people in NJ had to pay was considerably more than a comparable policy in the DC metro area of Virginia. Under McCain's proposal, people from NJ would not be prevented from buying lower cost insurance in another state. It seems intuitively obvious to me and I would think that the burden of proof that their system is best should be on those who think competition should be inhibited as it currently is.

I think the example of deregulation failure in the airline industry is a bit misguided. The problem with the airline industry is that deregulation has been too successful. The effect of deregulation has been to keep the price of an airline ticket so low that, whereas in the days of regulation it was the mode of travel for only the well-to-do, now it is the method of travel for the common man. The resulting increase in demand has resulted in the infrastructure being overly burdened.