The Budget Surplus and Healthcare

Max Sawicky sawicky at
Tue Feb 16 11:44:25 PST 1999

> . . . But don't you think Max, that a
> national health care system
> that also covered and collected premiums from all
> those healthy folks
> adored by insurance companies could go a long way towards cost
> effectiveness? Also I see cost savings in the very
> group-effortness of it
> all. Pharmacuetical companies would lose their wild
> ride, saving enormous
> amounts. I mean, 21 year patents on drugs, many of
> which were at least
> partially developed with tax dollars at NIH. Shoo fly!

Yes, including everyone is part of the point. For insurance, you want to spread the costs of risks as thinly as possible over the maximum number of people. Second, only a unitary system (or perhaps a handful of large, regional ones) will have the means to restrain the growth of costs, which is currently untenable. (it's medicare which causes the long-run budget projections to 'blow up,' not Social Security).

A national system wouldn't have any necessary implications for patents, though one might suspect that the same political environment giving rise to a national system would be inclined to reduce the excessive returns to investment in patented drugs.

> Not to mention all those patriotic oldsters rooting
> out fraud on medical
> bills. What about a medical corp for health pros
> willing to serve in
> return for educational benefits. Institute the

There's a bit of that now and could be more, with or without a national system.

> promise of a fair and
> equitable system, and the process will come. I'm
> convinced the problems other countries have is partially
predicated by the
> great American debacle. Something for their black-hearts to
shoot for.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list