{"id":226543,"date":"2017-07-08T18:49:51","date_gmt":"2017-07-08T22:49:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/how-to-improve-us-health-care-new-york-times.php"},"modified":"2017-07-08T18:49:51","modified_gmt":"2017-07-08T22:49:51","slug":"how-to-improve-us-health-care-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/health-care\/how-to-improve-us-health-care-new-york-times.php","title":{"rendered":"How to Improve US Health Care &#8211; New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    MICHAEL L. MILLENSON    HIGHLAND PARK, ILL.  <\/p>\n<p>    The writer is president of Health Quality Advisors.  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    I commend Bret Stephens for pointing out the inconvenient truth    that both Obamacare and Trumpcare suffer from an insurmountable    problem: For-profit health care is a contradiction in terms.    Insurance companies are most concerned about profitability, and    profits are derived from high co-payments and premiums,    discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions,    expensive prescription medications (often with adverse side    effects), excessive high-tech screening and surgical solutions.    These approaches are not affordable for many people and may not    produce good health, which frequently depends more on healthy    diet and lifestyle choices, which are not profitable.  <\/p>\n<p>    As Mr. Stephens points out, both Democrats and Republicans are    only tinkering with the same unfixable formula. There is a    solution to this problem, however, and it is not the H.S.A.s    that Mr. Stephens endorses. The solution is a single-payer    health care system. Single-payer health care, by eliminating    the pursuit of profit, both reduces health care costs    and improves health care outcomes. It is a disgrace    that the United States pays at least twice as much per capita    for health care and yet has some of the worst health care    outcomes in the industrialized world.  <\/p>\n<p>    Why is the United States the only industrialized country    without a single-payer health care system? Perhaps the    insurance and pharmaceutical company lobbyists have the answer.  <\/p>\n<p>    BEVERLY BURRIS    ALBUQUERQUE  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    Bret Stephens is right to point to the importance of medical    cost control, but his suggestion that the Obamacare exchanges    are fundamentally unworkable is nonsense. In essence, all    Obamacare attempted to do was bring the benefits of group    insurance, which covers most working-age Americans, to those    without employer-sponsored coverage. Thus the core concept had    substantial precedent and was perfectly sound.  <\/p>\n<p>    And it has succeeded. In an April analysis reported on by The    Times (Insurers    Stem Losses, and May Soon Profit, From Health Law Plans),    Standard & Poors showed that Obamacare enrollee medical    costs  which shot up rapidly during 2014 and 2015  have since    fallen back to comparability with group-policy enrollee costs.    We have now weathered the start-up storm. The primary remaining    threat to stability in this market is uncertainty around    potential disruption by the president and Republican-controlled    Congress.  <\/p>\n<p>    STEVE LEOVY, BOULDER, COLO.  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    Re Understanding    Republican Cruelty (column, June 30):  <\/p>\n<p>    Paul Krugman rightly laments the gratuitous cruelty of    Republicans in their proposed health bill. It didnt used to be    this way.  <\/p>\n<p>    In 1935 in the House of Representatives, 284 Democrats and 81    Republicans voted to pass the Social Security law; 15 Democrats    and 15 Republicans voted against.  <\/p>\n<p>    In the Senate, 60 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted in favor;    one Democrat and five Republicans voted nay.  <\/p>\n<p>    After the House vote on the bill, The New York Times    editorialized that the Republicans, who were its chief critics    during the debate, wound up by voting for it overwhelmingly.    That was before a morally indefensible agenda, in Mr.    Krugmans words, became the name of their game.  <\/p>\n<p>    SUSAN DUNN    WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.  <\/p>\n<p>    The writer is a professor of humanities at Williams    College.  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    Paul Krugman attempts, as so many others have, to explain the    brutal and inhuman cruelty of opposition to Obamacare by some    fellow Americans. We can reduce the difference between the    major parties to bumper-sticker length. For Democrats: Help    Others. For Republicans: Help Yourself. The difference of a    single word can explain a divided nation.  <\/p>\n<p>    HOWARD SCHAIN, NEW YORK  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    Re Going    Small on Health Care, by Ross Douthat (column, July 2):    The fundamental problem with going small, as well as the    current attempt to repeal and replace, is that both do nothing    to bend the curve on the growth of health care costs and    spending. A braver approach would be to go even bigger.  <\/p>\n<p>    Rewrite Medicare, Medicaid and our employer health care plans    to mandate capitation (a fixed fee per patient) with health    care providers. This gives providers more skin in the game    vis--vis overall cost. Give foreign drug companies, vaccine    manufacturers and device makers easier access to our markets,    and have the government negotiate with them directly     accepting only prices that are no higher in the United States    than in other G-20 countries. Make high-deductible plans with    health savings accounts the standard across the board, even if    government has to partially fund these accounts to give all    health care recipients a stake in the use of medical resources.    Democrats and Republicans should either go big or go home.  <\/p>\n<p>    RACHEL BRONHEIM, NEW YORK  <\/p>\n<p>    To the Editor:  <\/p>\n<p>    Ross Douthat nicely summarizes the difficulties both parties    faced in attempting unilaterally to solve our national health    care problems. And while I am no fan of our new president, he    should recognize that he now has a chance to do something    positive by forcing a bipartisan approach.  <\/p>\n<p>    First, a family member must explain to him that both the House    and Senate Republican health care bills fail to meet his own    requirement of containing a heart. Second, he should announce    that he will sign only a health bill that has strong bipartisan    support. President Trump has a chance to demonstrate his    alleged skill in the art of the deal by helping to solve a    real national problem.  <\/p>\n<p>    LAWRENCE CHRISTMAS    OAK PARK, ILL.  <\/p>\n<p>        Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and        Twitter        (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion        Today newsletter.<\/p>\n<p>      A version of this letter appears in print on July 9, 2017, on      Page SR10 of the New York      edition with the headline: How to Improve U.S. Health      Care.    <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading here: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/07\/08\/opinion\/sunday\/how-to-improve-us-health-care.html\" title=\"How to Improve US Health Care - New York Times\">How to Improve US Health Care - New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> MICHAEL L. MILLENSON HIGHLAND PARK, ILL.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/health-care\/how-to-improve-us-health-care-new-york-times.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-care"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226543"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}