The Paradox of trying to contain health-care costs
NATIONAL JOURNAL has a rather insightful piece today illustrating how the conventional wisdom on containing health-care costs doesn't necessarily produce the desired outcome.
All issues of health-care costs aside, Obamacare is wrong-headed since it criminalizes poverty. Under Obamacare, those who cannot afford to buy health insurance would have to pay a penalty to the federal government.
Imagine this approach? You can't afford health insurance and, because of that, the government punishes you by imposing a financial penalty. Only Obama can take a problem like health-care and make it worse!
kavips
Tue, Mar 12, 2013 9:12am
Up to now, I'd always thought visiting a private practice which has not one, but two, physicians working to provide low cost health care... was the pair of docs trying to contain health-care costs !!!
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Mar 12, 2013 10:44am
Interesting article. It is unusual that a government-run program is more cost-effective than a private sector program, but at least in the Arkansas version that appears to be the case.
mrpizza
Tue, Mar 12, 2013 6:26pm
The problem with anything government-run is that the costs are artificially low and are sustained by continued borrowing, which as of now, 46 cents of every dollar government spends is borrowed. At some point, the house of cards will come tumbling down if steps aren't taken to cut costs. Less pain now - a lot more pain later.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
click here.
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
