Having drawn attention to the perverse system of disincentives embedded in America's present system of paying for healthcare and the even more perverse set of disincentives provided by Obamacare, we now declare a Last Word. As if such a thing were possible.
The Atlantic this month carries an extensive article by one David Goldhill, a business executive prompted to consider the American healthcare "system" after the death of his father from an infection contracted at a major hospital. Goldhill notes meticulously and clearly how the present system discourages and prevents consumers from evaluating healthcare options from a cost/benefit standpoint, unlike virtually every other area of a rational economy.
His proposal involves a transition to mandatory catastrophic insurance, health savings accounts, subsidies for the poor, and reorganization of healthcare providers into more cooperative, efficient systems that don't rely on fee-for-service but allocate costs on bases that incentivize providers to give effective care.
It is completely unlike what the present party in power proposes.
Goldhill's most telling point: if folks think that such a system is unlikely to provide what they need when they need it, they simply should ask what they would do if handed $1.7 million to provide healthcare over their entire lifetime. That's a good approximation of the present cost per patient.
This is a longish article, so settle down for a good read.