Comment

Rachel Maddow vs. GOP Wacko Art Robinson

572
kingkenrod10/08/2010 8:04:20 am PDT

re: #552 Obdicut

I understand that just fine. That doesn’t mean you’re in any way right to claim it is THE driver of health care costs. Did you read the article I linked?

So how does that equate to ‘not having any answers’, exactly? That, to me, says that they’re attempting to solve the problem, not that they’ve thrown up their hands and declared it to be unsolvable.

They’re attempting more than to set up a Medicare equivalent, by the way— since they already cover acute cases through the normal system, saying that they have no system like Medicare is not actually a true statement. What they lack is a system to deal with day-to-day care; they have a system for acute care.

They are trying to use their unique mix of private/public to solve the problem— an example that I still think we could follow. They do this by attempting to subsidize private and charitable organizations long-term health care provisions for the elderly.

[Link: www.sma.org.sg…]

I am still failing to see how what you have said is in any way an argument against the Singapore model’s efficacy in the US. Obviously one couldn’t excise it and slap it down whole, it’d have to be adjusted, but what’s with the flat-out rejection?

Interesting graph: Life expectancy Singapore vs. US:

google.com

I’d say advantage Singapore.

The Post article is very interesting - I’ll point out two things. First, Singapore’s population density works in their favor, I’m sure they save a ton of money by centralizing services. Second, moving to a system where 33% of costs are out of pocket would be impossible politically in the US (if the current oop costs are 10%).

Our new HCR moves away from the Singapore model in two ways - by trying to limit out of pocket costs, and by seeking to eliminate catastrophic-only plans.