![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two health care links
9 Jun 2011 11:17 am1. One way capitalism can make health care worse and more expensive from those wacky Marxists at The Economist in response to disingenuous shit David Brooks' column about how there's no way government-run efficacy reviews could constrain costs (widely ridiculed already).
But beyond the added expense [of marketing campaigns], why would anyone think that a system in which marketing plays such a large role is likely to be more effective, to lead to better treatment, than the kind of process of expert review that governs grant awards at NIH or publishing decisions at peer-reviewed journals? Why do we think that a system in which ads for Claritin are all over the subways will generate better overall health results than one where a national review board determines whether Claritin delivers treatment outcomes for some populations sufficiently superior to justify its added expense over similar generics? What do we expect from a system in which, as ProPublica reports today, body imaging companies hire telemarketers to sell random people CT scans over the phone?
2. The illusion of high taxes
As I've said before, and evidence (NYTimes) suggests, if the US government funded a single-payer national health plan via increased taxes, the amount of money out of the (already insured) average American's pocket would not change much, because the money they pay (both directly as a premium and indirectly as lower wages) for insurance is about equal to the amount taxes would have to go up.
It's a common scare tactic of the American right (and one I saw with my own eyes in an anti-single-payer leaflet produced by a drug company 6 years ago) to say, "Your taxes will go up to oppressive levels and you'll have no money left to pay your bills!" That's patently untrue.
(Additionally, US total tax rates are at a 60-year low. Yeah, I think the 250k+/year earners could afford higher taxes.)
But beyond the added expense [of marketing campaigns], why would anyone think that a system in which marketing plays such a large role is likely to be more effective, to lead to better treatment, than the kind of process of expert review that governs grant awards at NIH or publishing decisions at peer-reviewed journals? Why do we think that a system in which ads for Claritin are all over the subways will generate better overall health results than one where a national review board determines whether Claritin delivers treatment outcomes for some populations sufficiently superior to justify its added expense over similar generics? What do we expect from a system in which, as ProPublica reports today, body imaging companies hire telemarketers to sell random people CT scans over the phone?
2. The illusion of high taxes
As I've said before, and evidence (NYTimes) suggests, if the US government funded a single-payer national health plan via increased taxes, the amount of money out of the (already insured) average American's pocket would not change much, because the money they pay (both directly as a premium and indirectly as lower wages) for insurance is about equal to the amount taxes would have to go up.
It's a common scare tactic of the American right (and one I saw with my own eyes in an anti-single-payer leaflet produced by a drug company 6 years ago) to say, "Your taxes will go up to oppressive levels and you'll have no money left to pay your bills!" That's patently untrue.
(Additionally, US total tax rates are at a 60-year low. Yeah, I think the 250k+/year earners could afford higher taxes.)
