Possible Health Compromise with Trigger Mechanism

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/health.care/index.html

Essentially, Republicans will get their way with healthcare and there will be no public option.  However, if the private market is unable to meet America's healthcare needs as agreed upon by Republicans, then the public option kicks in.  This puts Republicans in a tough position, because they understand economics and know that the private system will not be as efficient as the public system, and that the private system could never reach any goals that they could reasonably propose the to public.

What? Is that bolded part a joke?

The problem is the private system will be far more efficient then the public system, but the goals set by congress will be so crazy, that the private system can't reach them. So, the trigger kicks in a Government does it for twice the cost.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

What if Congress sets goals to cut costs down to near levels of other developed countries?

Why should that be impossible?

Depends on what they want to cut costs on. If its doctors salaries, malpractice costs, hospital costs and so on, I think that's a great way to go.

I would prefer we keep drugs at a high cost. The future advancement in medicine is in the drug field. I want a high reward so companies will continue high risk research.

I want everyone to have healthcare, but I am not willing to sacrifice the hundreds of millions of future lives we save with advancements yet to be made, to accomplish it.

Because the Democrats and Republicans both have huge medical backers.

If you look at Medicare you'll see the funniest thing.

In republican states specialsits are way overpaid and general practioners are underpaid.

In democratic states general practioners are underpaid and specialists are overpaid.

In democractic states, insurance companies are never paid in time.

In republcian states other third parties aren't paid in time.

In "balanced" states... everything is overpaid.

Medicine is overpaid in just about every state as well.  Since big pharmacy has their money everywhere... but considering how much American medical technology dominates the world and how much is spent on it.  Overpaying for drugs and treatments using new technology may be a good thing.

Unless the trigger mechanism is set far into the future it is just an excuse to switch to a public system ...

Being that almost nothing is going to be done to impact the bulk of costs within the system (medical malpractice lawsuits, drug costs, preventable illnesses, and bureaucracy) because private insurance companies act as good scapegoats it may take several years for the insurance companies to find ways to reduce costs; if they even can reduce costs under the restrictions they’re going to be under (like the elimination of pre-existing conditions). It is unlikely that (without a miracle) the insurance companies would be able to produce the kinds of cost reductions that would be required to prevent the trigger mechanism from being enacted for at least 5 to 10 years.

If this goes through, the US will basically have a public system based on the model of Medicare and Medicade which are systems that already cost the United States a similar amount to the healthcare systems in other countries (on a per-capita basis) while only covering a small fraction of the population; and are two systems which are projected to be bankrupt within 5 to 10 years.

The United States healthcare system is not as efficient as the healthcare systems of other developed countries.  For instance, the United Kingdom pays three times less for healthcare than the United States, and there is no way America's private system could bring costs down that low while still covering the entire population.  Before you say anything, because I know you will, the United Kingdom has private hospitals and, even if you were to argue that their public hospitals are slow, they could build three times as many hospitals and hire three times as many doctors and blow the United States out of the water if they wanted to waste that much money.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita

I don't believe an actual bill has been proposed, just talk about what would be in a bill, but I agree that there is a lot more to be done for America's healthcare system than just who provides healthcare.  Something like Medicare will always be costly if doctors can use it as a cash cow by subjecting patients to unnecessary tests (which can be fixed by making doctors wage's salary based), and doctors will always have to charge patients more if they pay $50,000 a year in malpractice insurance (which can be fixed with tort reform).

This couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the United Kingdom has 1/5 the population of the U.S., could it? Or am I getting it all confused?

The statistic is PER CAPITA, or per person.  It is an average that takes the population of the United States and the United Kingdom into account.