Dr. Benjamin Carson's Health Care Reform Ideas

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That's another side of it that I chose not to use as an example, since it's distasteful to some, though I'd expect our system will eventually have to accept it: The family, who currently has no financial stake in brain dead grandma's extremely expensive and absolutely futile end-of-life care, is able to tell her doctor to "do everything" so they don't have the guilt of "putting her down" and can go on hoping she'll magically get better.

The moral hazard you describe is actually one of the most problematic aspects of an HSA-based system, because medicine is the ultimate seller's market. The informational asymmetry is simply massive, and turning the population loose with limited funds and health advice from WebMD/Yahoo! Answers is a recipe for misallocation.

The way to resolve the above situation is to facilitate grandma signing a living will before she becomes vegetative. Most people are actually quite reasonable when given the chance. Of course, you may remember that efforts to reimburse providers for end-of-life counseling were met with screams of "Death Panels!", but that is another story.
 
Sure, that's one way at looking at it, but what about the kid diagnosed with leukemia at age 5? What happens when this person's HSA runs out? What about someone who gets into a car accident and his HSA can't cover the costs? HSA is a simplistic model that doesn't work in the real world. The costs are too high and the risk too great for people to rely solely on HSA. So we would still need some sort of insurance to cover those major expenditures anyways and then we are back to the same problem instead now we have to pay both insurance premiums AND contribute to our HSA accounts.

He only took a minute or two to describe such a plan, so it's obviously not fleshed out to cover every possibility. That doesn't mean it's not workable or not worth any consideration.

If we did go with some sort of multiplier system like I threw out there with my first post, each dollar they kicked in would have a third party (whether it be the government or some kind of insurance company) kicking more cash in. They could also experiment with some system that pays all or a bigger part of the care involved with an initial diagnosis and treatment so you're not immediately bankrupted when you come down with a costly illness. Or couple HSAs with a catastrophic insurance policy. You pay down the office visits and less costly medications with your HSA, and the insurance company pays out when you have an MI or a child has leukemia. And since these are relatively infrequent occurances, the premiums are lower.

The moral hazard you describe is actually one of the most problematic aspects of an HSA-based system, because medicine is the ultimate seller's market. The informational asymmetry is simply massive, and turning the population loose with limited funds and health advice from WebMD/Yahoo! Answers is a recipe for misallocation.

The way to resolve the above situation is to facilitate grandma signing a living will before she becomes vegetative. Most people are actually quite reasonable when given the chance. Of course, you may remember that efforts to reimburse providers for end-of-life counseling were met with screams of "Death Panels!", but that is another story.

Living wills are a great way to handle these situations, but even as much as they're pushed, participation isn't as wide as it should be. And there's still just as much of an "informational asymmetry." Living wills and physicians counseling families about the abysmal prognosis of their brain dead family member both have professionals educating people and trying to help them make the right decision. One's just more proactive. Both are still vulnerable to unrealistic and emotional decisions despite our best efforts. But the benefit of adding the financial interest of passing down those HSA funds from the deceased or the family paying for the care out of their own account makes them think about whether it's worth it to pay that kind of money while they wait for a miracle. It's a little underhanded and sinister, but we need "death panels," and this deflects the blame away from the hospital and physicians for doing it and makes it easier. You could legislate better and more lawsuit-protective ways to enable physicians to withdraw this care, but considering the outcry it would raise, it's not likely to happen.
 
He only took a minute or two to describe such a plan, so it's obviously not fleshed out to cover every possibility. That doesn't mean it's not workable or not worth any consideration.

If we did go with some sort of multiplier system like I threw out there with my first post, each dollar they kicked in would have a third party (whether it be the government or some kind of insurance company) kicking more cash in. They could also experiment with some system that pays all or a bigger part of the care involved with an initial diagnosis and treatment so you're not immediately bankrupted when you come down with a costly illness. Or couple HSAs with a catastrophic insurance policy. You pay down the office visits and less costly medications with your HSA, and the insurance company pays out when you have an MI or a child has leukemia. And since these are relatively infrequent occurances, the premiums are lower.

The only way such a plan is viable is to have universal healthcare coverage like the Europeans do. Otherwise, the entire point of the HSA accounts will be moot when people start dying because they don't have access to insurance and their funds run out.
 
I don't think anyone would mind if he was a Christian. I myself believe a higher power (God, if you will) created the universe, but within that universe, all that can be assumed is what can be proven with observable evidence. I can't take anyone who calls themselves a scientist seriously if they subscribe to a belief (YEC) which completely ignores mountains of evidence that denies it. If you want to believe in God, that's all well and good, but believing in something that is counter intuitive to everything we can observe about the universe, and at the same time have the intelligence to get where he is today, well...It seems like hypocrisy to me.

I do not support the belief that earth was created 6K years ago. That being said I also do not support those who blindly support evolution and staunchly refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the theory. I believe that evolution is the best theory for the origin of life, but it is a narrow view and does have some flaws that need to be considered.

And if anybody still thinks socialized medicine is a good idea, one need only watch the documentary called Nazi Medicine to see how state controlled healthcare leads to a disaster of unintended consequences.
 
I do not support the belief that earth was created 6K years ago. That being said I also do not support those who blindly support evolution and staunchly refuse to acknowledge the flaws of the theory. I believe that evolution is the best theory for the origin of life, but it is a narrow view and does have some flaws that need to be considered.

And if anybody still thinks socialized medicine is a good idea, one need only watch the documentary called Nazi Medicine to see how state controlled healthcare leads to a disaster of unintended consequences.

I think any sweeping generalization of this scale is dangerous. What about the VA? There's nothing inherent in a socialized medical model that necessitates dysfunction.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa021899
 
I think any sweeping generalization of this scale is dangerous. What about the VA? There's nothing inherent in a socialized medical model that necessitates dysfunction.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa021899

It is not a sweeping generalization. You create a system that allows a small number of the wrong people to gain a dangerously large amount of concentrated power. It does not mean that it will happen, but when government gets too big there is no safeguard against the rise of evil.
 
And if anybody still thinks socialized medicine is a good idea, one need only watch the documentary called Nazi Medicine to see how state controlled healthcare leads to a disaster of unintended consequences.

Or you could just look at the NHS.

Anyways, Godwin's Law and all that.

/[thread]
 
Before this turns into a semantics debate, "evolution" in its common usage refers to the change of species over time and nothing about the origin of life. Why do you think otherwise?

One of Darwin's books is called "On the ORIGIN of species"

Change of species over "time" includes the beginning of time.
 
One of Darwin's books is called "On the ORIGIN of species"

Change of species over "time" includes the beginning of time.

You're misinterpreting Darwin. The origin of just about every species did not occur at the origin of life. Origin of species refers to how species change in to other species over time. This is separate from the "beginning of time," and from the origin of life.

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/
 
Last edited:
You're misinterpreting Darwin. The origin of just about every species did not occur at the origin of life. Origin of species refers to how species change in to other species over time. This is separate from the "beginning of time," and from the origin of life.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

You are arguing semantics now. It goes back to evolution of bacteria, effectively accounting for the first life on earth.
 
I agree it doesn't account for how the 'first' life actually appeared. Aliens did that as everybody knows. But it does account for how the first life evolved.

Based on sinombre's paper it doesn't

In quotations from the paper:

"he was keenly aware that there was no explanation of how such an ancestral entity had first evolved. Darwin's theory was based, among other lines of evidence, on observations of living and fossil organisms, but for him the fossil record stopped at rocks that we know now correspond to the end of the Precambrian. Moreover, he did not view microbes, which are gorgeously absent from his work, as evolutionary predecessors of animals and plants (Lazcano 2002)."

From my knowledge, his origin of species was explaining how "current" species came into being. His theory did not span back to the first being.
 
I agree it doesn't account for how the 'first' life actually appeared. Aliens did that as everybody knows. But it does account for how the first life evolved.

wait what!!??😱
 
First I want to say that I am not a medical Student but I research payment systems for health care
Dr Ben Carson used Singapore as an example as his model but he failed to pont out some issues that result in lower costs Two primary reasons is Government Price Controls and doctors are paid less then half of what American Doctors are paid

Additional information

While it is ranked 6th by the WHO in health care. (2000) It's primarily due to Government Price Controls. (Not the Payment System And Singapore has a Population of 5.187 Million. Far below most European Countries or Canada that have different Payment Methods

While Per Capita Singapore Spends 2592 dollars
And the USA spends 8223 dollars Per Capita

Doctors in Singapore are paid less the Half of what USA Doctors make ( in Canada doctors are paid near the Same or More depending on the Field they are in

Singapore also has strong Government Price Controls on health care .....aka. Government. Regulations

The Cost of living in the USA is also overall lower then Singapore

More failures in an HSA is it assumes a lot of Americans can afford A High Deductible of 10k. Based on a Annual income of 30k for a single person with other required expenses such as housing utilities, car, gas, food and basic necessities Living Frugally a person making 30k a year might have 10k if lucky ...... And everything goes right

Another issue is that after 50 years and putting in 3k a year you will have 150k in your HSA
A drop in the Bucket compared to the cost of healthcare (unless you are willing to take a Drastic Pay Cut among other measures to lower costs Due to Government Price Controls aka Regulations

Example, person making 30k a year might have 10k if lucky ...... And everything goes right

Another issue is that after 50 years and putting in 3k a year you will have 150k in your HSA
A drop in the Bucket compared to the cost of healthcare (unless you are willing to take a Drastic Pay Cut among other measures to lower costs Due to Government Price Controls aka Regulations

Singapore has fewer doctors then the USA, Canada and Western European Countries

Additionally 54 percent of Singapore's health care expenditure is Out Of Pocket

Additional Info
Universal Health Coverage through Public-Private Partnerships in Primary Care - The Case of Community Health Assist Scheme in Singapore



" Table 1 below provides a breakdown of Singapore’s total health expenditure. The breakdown shows that Singapore has a particularly low share of government expenditure on health, with the bulk of it being private expenditure. Singaporeans rely extensively on out-of-pocket payments to finance their healthcare, with at least 50 per cent of total healthcare expenditure being borne by out-of-pocket payments. However in 2010, data indicated that the out-of- pocket payments as a share on total health expenditure for OECD nations averaged 20.1 per cent; while the public expenditure’s share on total health expenditure for OECD nations averaged 72.2 per cent. In contrast, the public expenditure’s share on total health expenditure in Singapore stood at 36.3 per cent in 2010. The share of public expenditure on total health expenditure has indicated an upward trend over the years, and this poses critical public policy questions on the sustainability of the current financing model. Although the share of out-of- pocket payments on total health expenditure has shown a downward trend over the years, out- of-pocket payments still form the bulk of total health expenditure. This also raises public policy questions on efficiency, equity and adequacy of Singapore’s healthcare system."

http://www.economistconferences.asi.../files/uploaded-resources/CHAS-Sinagapore.pdf
 
Last edited:
And if anybody still thinks socialized medicine is a good idea, one need only watch the documentary called Nazi Medicine to see how state controlled healthcare leads to a disaster of unintended consequences.

First of all
Germany already had Universal Health Care when the nazis took power

Second of all
The National Institute of Health is the largest single source funder of medical research and innovation in the world and private companies not only get grants from it, like the Mayo Clinic, but are also strong Advocates for it and oppose the Republicans cutting its funding

It is also Socialized Medicine in its purest form.
 
Top Bottom