Ruminations and hypotheses on healthcare

Here I try to outline how I think of the healthcare problem, while I also admit that I have not devoted the exhaustive effort for a longer article.

General facts

  • There is a general criticism out there about the share of GDP going to healthcare in the United $tates. I’m not in denial.
  • There are tens of millions of uninsured people in a situation that would be unthinkable in other rich countries, say I$rael.


    Specific facts

  • There is no public opinion for socialism or social-democracy and no vehicle to press for either.
  • There is little difference between the life expectancy of the United $tates and Denmark, with both standing at 78.
  • Medical doctors receive training in the United $tates to “take over” everything from operations in surgery to building facilities.
  • With the profit motive respected in med school teaching thus far, healthcare ends up being a war for reimbursement, with cheating on the “buckets” that diagnoses and treatments are in.

  • Wishes

  • I wish it were not true, but medical doctors run more sociology research and more social work than sociologists and social workers themselves.
  • Medical doctors are also running quarter-assed studies on eugenics and doing charity work on the side, when obviously I wish we had communist directed research and services.


    Hypotheses


    It is very strange that at this moment of economic crisis we see Krugman’s “saltwater” economists call for healthcare reform, specifically with GDP efficiency related arguments. The Obama administration has yet to squeeze the gravy out of banking and ladle it somewhere else and now the liberals are taking on the medical establishment.

    The question of share of GDP going to healthcare is a way of interesting Amerikans in other countries, such as Kanada or Sweden or Switzerland. That is fine.

    Yet, the political truth is that we do not have any idea about “socialism” or social-democracy here yet. Those other countries might, especially those like I$rael which had these arguments out a long time ago.

    In the U.$. case, the real conflict is between Karl Roves and medical imperialism. We already know about the disaster that is prison and reservation healthcare. Yet the larger the government role, the easier it is to target healthcare funding. We see that even in Massachusetts, with the legal immigrant question.

    The trouble with GDP fetishism is that the other rich countries dedicate higher portions of GDP (national income) to social services than the United $tates does.

  • What they would call social work or charity in other countries is called healthcare in the United $tates.

    That’s not to deny that Amerikan paperwork and administration is less efficient than that of other countries. Even less am I thrilled to see medical doctors carry out the bulk of sociological research. There is nothing good about having profit-oriented doctors involved in drug discovery efforts either.

    Yet the bottom line could very well be medical profession imperialism versus politician nastiness. In that contest, I see no reason to jump up and down for the politicians of the united $tates. It might be better to let medical doctors go on seizing all resources in sight, with the prestige they have in our particular society. The liberal Democrats might really be biting off something they do not understand.

    The GDP argument seems to be used as an excuse for saying government could contribute to healthcare efficiency. Yet when the total of social spending including healthcare in the United $tates is lower than in other countries, I’m not sure I want to start a reform struggle with healthcare. We could end up with more prison guards, tanks and anti-migrant fences contributing to the economists’ beloved GDP.

    A different question is the political impact of the healthcare struggle. Back in 1993 it boded well for a raucous situation relatively speaking — contradictions among the rich people.

    Advertisements

    Tags:


    %d bloggers like this: