A theme throughout his interview was the medical costs associated with people not getting treated sooner than later. He is right: we need health-care reform. Is Medicare for All the answer? 63 year olds not getting treated until they're on Medicare doesn't mean it's a great system. It might mean people are cheap (or money is tight) and wait until it's free (no money out of their pocket) or it could mean that even the cost of preventive care is too high but it doesn't mean Medicare is a great system. Money is often a huge factor in medical decisions. Instead of using Medicare for All to force costs to go down why not provide incentives for the medical community to lower costs? Lowering medical costs without Medicare for All should reduce insurance costs. Reducing insurance costs should increase the likelihood of people getting preventive care. Isn't that the goal?
© 2013 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation