Andy Grove gets modest about health care reform
Former Intel boss Andy Grove has a letter to the presidential candidates in the latest Fortune. An excerpt:
Your staff is probably working on a big, ambitious plan to fix health care.
Depending on whether you lean left or right, it's either a universal health-care plan or a way to increase market influence throughout the health-care economy. I have a best-of-all-worlds idea too. In my system the government would cover preventive care and catastrophic health-related expenses. The ordinary medical expenses would be left to individuals. The reason I like this approach is that it has built-in incentives to support preventive care, and it would also protect people from financial ruin due to illness. Yet for most situations, the power of the consumer economy would be allowed to do its magic.
The only problem with my plan - and yours - is that it's too much. Look at the history of health-care reform in our country. Presidents have been putting forth plans for comprehensive health-care reform for 100 years. That's not a typo. Woodrow Wilson proposed universal health care. So did Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton ... None of them got there. I believe none of you will either.
So what's Andy's suggestion? First, fix emergency rooms, using a 1% surtax on all health-care billings to pay for improvements. Second, change Medicare incentives (and use technology) to encourage the ailing elderly to stay at home as long as possible instead of checking into a nursing home.
That's it. It seems, given all the bold plans in the air at the moment, decidedly underambitious. Or is Andy just being smart?
-
1
Does this former corporate boss compel companies that are now providing health care coverage to their workers to transfer those funds directly to the workers? Or is he just another hack looking to increase profits at the expense of working people?
Does his plan require insurance companies to cover everyone at reasonable rates regardless of medical history? If not, he's just flacking for the insurance industry.
The only workable health care reform is "single payer". All these other plans which include the health insurance industry and worry about "for profit" hospital corporations will keep health costs high.
As for those who think that single payer will be a bureaucratic nightmare --- get yourself insured through HMOs/managed care, and tell me that the bureaucracy and inefficiency can be so much worse that it wouldn't be worth the tremendous savings that single payer provides...
-
2
I think that the logical flaw in Andy's logic is that he's assuming the past is like the present, that the reason health care reform has failed for the last 100 years are all the same, when they are not.
I'm open minded about his plan, but I dispute his conclusion that some kind of comprehensive reform is not possible.
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy













RSS