[lbo-talk] new EPI paper on social security

[Gail Brock]

The high costs are part of the profit motive underlying medical practice, 
especially in the U.S.  The clearest example is the high level of Ceasarean 
sections where the provider gets more money for C-sections than for natural 
birth.  The medical practice makes more for doing more procedures.  The drug 
companies provide favors to doctors for prescribing their drugs, even though 
they have not been shown more effective than a drug that has emerged from patent 
protection.  The patient does not have the knowledge to select the appropriate 
treatment.

In the U.S. we discuss everything in terms of costs, even, for crying out loud, 
the death penalty.  In health care this has been a question of access, but I 
think it also reflects people's subliminal knowledge that financial incentives 
create a conflict of interest for the provider.  Holding down costs is proxy for 
providing more disinterested care.

 

_________________________________

 Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com>  (August 18, 2010 4:00:24 PM)

[WS:} I can think of a progressive side of this argument - if the price
rises, this will make health care less available to anyone but those rich
enough to afford it.  This means not just underclass but a lot of working
class people whose insurance coverage is likely to evaporate.

Wojtek

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Somebody Somebody <philos_case at yahoo.com>wrote:


> Because costs rise faster than warranted by the growth of elderly persons.
> Prices here are much higher than other countries. We're spending more than
> we need to.
>
>
> Somebody: Sure, but it's still rising in European countries with universal
> health care and stronger price controls. I understand why the bourgeoisie is
> callous about trading away human lives for tax cuts, but I don't understand
> why so many ostensibly progressive people accept these arguments.
>
>