Massachusetts. Ho? Or Hum?

[Welcome Industry Radar readers!]

This article contains some of the news. Whether it’s all fit to print is another matter.

As is common in NYTimes articles, the best stuff is often found down near the end. That is, after all the stuff that editors with an agenda think is more important.

Check out the 4th from the last paragraph. Aw heck, here it is:

“Really controlling costs requires just stopping spending,” said Stuart H. Altman, a professor of health policy at Brandeis University.

Really, professor?

Now read the next-to-last paragraph:

“It forces us to look in the mirror and say, ‘What do we do about health care spending?’ ” said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the agency that administers Commonwealth Care.

My opinion? These experts are pushing EXACTLY the wrong solution. Their focus on spending leads to worse results for people, not better results.

Why is that?

Because the problem is the cost of health care. Fix that, and the spending problem is solved. Fail to fix the problem of cost, and the spending problem will be with us forever - no matter how politicians try to hide it. The Massachusetts program clearly demonstrates the truth of this statement. A focus on “spending” inevitably leads to rationing and ham-fisted ways to reduce what the government pays for health care, by reducing the supply of health care (think of Canada or Britain) or by restricting the public access to it (think of the same countries, again). That is not a solution. That is running thru Hell in gasoline pants.