From BusinessWeek:
Where are health care costs rising the fastest? Hint: It’s not in the U.S.
Cross-posted from State House Call.
While President Obama focused on those who have slipped through the cracks in America’s health care system last night, the National Center for Public Policy Research is reminding us that countries with greater government involvement in health care have their own, often worse, stories of access to life-saving medicine delayed or denied. They’ve released 100 such stories (PDF) from around the world.
The Cato Institute’s Michael D. Tanner has analyzed the key health care proposals being discussed in Congress and finds them all lacking.
From a blurb on his new study: “Americans will pay more and get less. Whatever the variation, however these bills are merged or compromised, this would be bad news for Americans.”
Here are a few reactions to President Obama’s speech last night that I’ve noticed this morning.
Larry Sabato, one of the country’s most respected academic observers of politics, said on his Twitter feed: “The era of bipartisanship, a mirage first seen in January, is over. You could cut the polarization in the House chamber with a knife.”
President Obama’s much-anticipated health care address last night fell short of the groundbreaking proposals one might have expected from the hype.
The president has firmed up support for a few ideas — individual and employer mandates that force people to enroll themselves, or their employees, in an insurance plan, and asserted his support for a government-run insurance company (though he didn’t call the “public option” a dealbreaker). He also reminded Americans that he supports choice and competition, even though the insurance mandates he’s set on seem to be opposed to both.
If you’re going to watch the president’s speech to Congress on health care tonight (8pm Eastern), you can follow the reactions of Cato Institute experts Michael F. Cannon and Michael D. Tanner on the Cato web site and on Twitter. See Cato-at-Liberty for details.
Here’s another reminder of why we need to make health care and health insurance cheaper: Arizona, facing a budget shortfall, will drop 10,000 people from one of its insurance programs.
To show you how bizarre public policy makes health care, these people are adults who are enrolled in a program for … children.
Here’s a pretty good, short description of what our laws have done to health care:
On the other, we enact regulations and restrictions to keep driving the private insurance system off a cliff.
As they say, read the whole thing, from Holman Jenkins in today’s Wall Street Journal. It’s insightful and short.
Alabama will soon make more children dependent on politics for their health insurance, and perhaps devastate the private insurance market for everyone else in the process.
According to the Birmingham News, “All Kids” will be able to enroll about 14,000 more children starting October 1, thanks to looser eligibility requirements. Right now, the program is limited to families with an income of two times the federal poverty level. It will go up to three times, so the number for a family of four will be $66,156. By contrast, the median household income in the state is under $41,000.
Greg Main, president of the Michigan Economic Development Corp., told a Grand Rapids Press columnist that he agrees with Michael LaFaive, the Mackinac Center's fiscal policy director, that the MEDC should be more transparent.
The columnist detailed a recent study by LaFaive and James Hohman, fiscal policy analyst, that tracks the failure of the MEDC and its many programs, including the Michigan Economic Growth Authority and the Michigan Film Office. A portion of the study points out the growing lack of transparency the MEDC has exhibited in the face of growing state unemployment, as well as the revelation that less than 30 percent of "new" jobs promised by the agency have come to fruition.
Living in a thinly populated area has its advantages but also some disadvantages — such as not having a doctor within 40 miles.
The Austin American-Statesman puts some numbers on something I’ve read of before, which is the fact that some Texas counties don’t have a resident doctor. How many? Try 27.
With two senators and a population of just 641,000, North Dakota is one of those states with an outsized influence on health care policy at the federal level. The North Dakota Policy Council will host a public meeting on health care policy, current proposals and patient-friendly alternatives. This video gives the pitch.
Something about this just doesn’t seem right: The South Carolina Department of Education and Subway restaurants are teaming up in an anti-childhood-obesity effort.
Subway, the official fast-food restaurant of public schools?
Cross-posted from State House Call.
If we hand more responsibility for health care to government, will it deliver? It’s one thing for the state or national government to give everyone a health insurance card, and another one entirely for people to actually get access to treatment.
That’s because in their attempt to keep some semblance of financial discipline, officials take several measures, including lowballing private physicians and other providers. Recently Delaware and Walgreens got into a dispute over that state’s attempts to cut its payments for medications.
As communications manager for the Property Rights Network, it never ceases to amaze me that Michigan residents possess an intuitive knowledge of property rights that seemingly eludes state policymakers.
A recent stop at a Kalkaska watering hole for a drink and a cigar proved no exception. Civility mandates that a cigar smoker receive permission from other patrons before lighting up. The affirmative reaction to my request was unanimous, and prompted an interesting conversation among the bar’s owner, employees, and guests. Comments ranged from “If people don’t like smoke, they should avoid places where it’s allowed” to “I’m sick of government telling me what I can and can’t do.”
From Nancy Pelosi, to Paul Krugman and on, there has been a steady drumbeat of accusations this summer from defenders of the “big government solution” side of the health care debate that the “town hall” and “TEA Party” protests against members of congress are organized by insurance companies, the Republican Party and various other so-called “Astroturf” agitators who don’t represent “normal” Americans. If one actually attends these events (as I have) the absurdity of this allegation becomes abundantly clear. The attendees, if anything, are apt to get MORE angry at the Republicans who started us down the “Bailout Nation” path during the previous presidential administration. Consider, as just one example, the reception that Texas Sen. Jon Cornyn received on July 4 when he tried to speak to a TEA Party gathering in Austin:
This year, “protectionist” bills have been introduced in the Michigan Senate and passed by the House that, among other things, require employers who receive state and local construction, service or purchase contracts to only hire Michigan residents, with some exceptions. The bills also impose “prevailing wage” provisions favored by unions on state contractors. (Prevailing wage is a law that prohibits awarding contracts to firms that submit the lowest bid unless the contractor pays so-called "prevailing wages" based on union pay scales in a particular part of a geographic region, rather than market rates.)
We’ve already noted that officials in some states are invoking the tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a way to prevent the implementation of a federal government takeover in their states.
The Detroit Free Press reports on such an effort in Michigan. Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, is leading the charge.
The idea of state legislators helping their voters opt out of federal health care reform is getting more press, this time from the Atlanta Business Chronicle:
The GOP senators said they plan to introduce a constitutional amendment during this winter’s General Assembly session giving Georgians the right to choose whether they want to enroll in any health insurance plan and prohibiting governments from punishing those who decide not to participate.
While it’s easy — and important — to point out the shortcomings of government-run health care, it’s also useful to remember how to get out of the mess we’re in.
Roy Cardato provides a reminder:
Other reforms should include relaxing licensing laws that prevent trained health-care professionals from rendering needed services. Another reform should target the tort system, which pushes malpractice insurance rates to levels that drive doctors out of their chosen specialties, especially obstetrics and gynecology. And ultimately, Medicare and Medicaid should be privatized, removing the government from the health insurance business altogether. Aid to seniors and the poor should be provided through a system of vouchers that empower people to own their own insurance plans, lifting them out from under the health-care bureaucracy.
Government requires you to buy insurance? Check.
Price controls on insurance premiums? Check.
Subsidies for people to buy insurance? Check.
Each of these items, discussed in Congress, have been implemented in Massachusetts. The results: More people have an insurance card, but time to see a doctor has gone up and officials are talking about rationing.
The incoming director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has had enough of government health programs and insurance companies. By cutting out insurers (and paperwork), Dr. George Watson can charge lower rates and spend more time with patients. KAKE-TV reports.
Cross-posted from MI Health Facts.
In the Sept. 1 Wall Street Journal center-left columnist Thomas Franks sets up some straw-man caricatures of “the right’s” arguments against a federal government takeover of the health care market. One of them is this:
What do you get when you combine America’s unreformed medical malpractice tort system with a government-run health care system?
A lottery, where the winners share 30 percent or more of the loot with trial lawyers, where there’s no cap on the size or number of “prizes” and where the costs are all imposed on taxpayers who get no choice about whether they will “play” or how much they’ll have to ante-up.
America's Health Insurance Plans, the leading trade group for health insurers, endorses an individual mandate (new customers by the millions!), complete with subsidies, in exchange for giving up medical underwriting.
The Council for Affordable Health Insurance, a smaller trade group, has other ideas that I suspect are more sensible. Their latest publication is “Access to Coverage: Building on Current Protections.” (PDF)
