‘Free’ medical care for the poor and elderly doesn’t hold up as a cost driver.
‘Free’ medical care is an unhelpful scapegoat
I had high hopes when Robert W. Geist began his Jan. 8 counterpoint with the valid question “Why does treating an ankle fracture cost $35,000?” I would add: Why are so many bankruptcy cases tied to medical costs? My hope was dashed, however, when Dr. Geist failed to offer any positive suggestions, instead presenting a diatribe unfortunately typical of the well-off and well-insured (“The high cost of ‘free’ medical care”).
Most of us have heard the arguments about all that has gone wrong with health care since it was made available to the poor and the elderly for “free” in the late 1960s. But there seems to be no consensus in the medical profession — there are doctors who, perhaps unlike Geist, believe in the efficacy of a single-payer system. What if, instead of constant bickering and sabotage, we tried pulling together as a nation to implement the Affordable Care Act enacted by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court? As we work on that, it certainly would be a valid exercise to identify problems and fix them as we continually strive for a better system.
TOM SALKOWSKI, Buffalo, Minn.
• • •
Presumably, Geist’s better way is to have each individual purchase private health care insurance, or go without and suffer the consequences. The Affordable Care Act is criticized as a move in the wrong direction.
He dismisses the role of health care providers in the rising cost of medical care. However, most of these are businesses with income and profit motives. Limited competition and untrained but motivated consumers incentivize some to provide unnecessary care and charge high prices. Individual insurance (or no insurance) will not correct this dysfunction.
Medical care insurers do not escape the cost disincentives. It is difficult for them to compete on the basis of denying coverage for procedures that a provider recommends.
It is well-publicized that the United States has the highest health care costs in the world, by a factor of two or more over other industrialized countries. Less well-known are the very mediocre U.S. health outcomes, ranking near 30th in many measurements of collective health. As virtually all of these low-cost, high-health countries have government-run health systems, the fault does not lie only in “free” medical care.
The Affordable Care Act is intended to alter the business model. There are incentives to focus on health outcomes (and not procedures), to provide guidelines for cost-effective care, and to increase competition among health care insurers and providers. Reducing the number of uninsured freeloaders can only help to reduce costs for the rest of us.
FRED POLLMAN, Eden Prairie
A space for senators, then, or for homeless
I agree with the writer of the Jan. 9 Letter of the Day (“State Senate office proposal adds up to one big waste”), who suggested that space could be found in other state-owned facilities. Failing that, the Legislature could rent space in the former Macy’s building that the St. Paul Port Authority just bought (“St. Paul Macy’s has buyer, but for what?” Jan. 8). No new Senate office building is called for. Not when we’re not feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.
JAMES WALLACE, Eden Prairie
• • •
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.