People have paid a lot of attention to the shortcomings of the current health reform proposals on the table. But are there better solutions? Yes, says Michael Cannon, who offers up six of them in this Op-Ed. One idea that should be more widely circulated is the large health savings account as a modification of employer-sponsored insurance.
Over the weekend, the “public option” seems to have fallen out of favor with President Obama, who no longer sees the government-run insurance program as an “essential element” of health reform.
The administration continues to affirm its belief in “competition with the private sector” as a key element of health care reform:
MoveOn.org recently set out some talking points for townhall meetings:
“Broken” is too strong of a word, but yes, there are serious problems that should be addressed. But the “public option” (insurance that is either run by government or distorted more than the usual insurance) will only make things worse. Apparently MoveOn.org is unaware of the fact that Medicaid is busting state budgets, Medicaid patients are having more trouble seeing doctors and Medicare is sending the country’s finances to hell in a handbasket. Given the record of those two probrams, it’s a joke to say that “costs will go down” with yet another government foray into health care.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services’ website, HealthReform.gov is trying hard to convince Michigan that health care reforms will help the state. They begin with what turns out to be an unrealistic claim that the government’s proposed reforms would reduce the cost of health care in Michigan (despite the fact that we still don’t know what, exactly, they would entail), and also say that reform would increase choice for Michiganders seeking health insurance.
Medicine is too bureaucratic, tied up in red tape from both insurance companies and government agencies. Some medical professionals and companies are exploring ways to make medicine less bureaucratic and more responsive to patients. One method is the retail health clinic, such as the kinds that you find in supermarkets, drug stores and department stores.
Can you expand government spending by $1 trillion and not end up with more restrictions on individual choices and decisions? It can’t be done, says Newt Gingrich, writing in the Los Angeles Times.
Among the ways in which you’ll lose control: One proposal in Congress will create an “essential benefits package,” which will determine what must be in your insurance policy—even stuff you’ll never use or have an interest in. (It’s sort of like forcing everyone who wants renter's insurance to buy coverage for the management company’s heating and ventilation system.) It also creates the “Health Choices Administration.” Yikes! I’d like to make my own choices, thank you very much.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services is using tax dollars to lobby for a government takeover of the health care market. They’ve created a Web site — HealthCare.gov — and sent out press releases with a list of ways that health reform will “help” each state.
Also from John Mackey’s column in the Wall Street Journal:
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Rationing health care by price? "Why not?" says Megan McArdle.
(Cross-posted from State House Call.)
This next item is a few days old, but it’s worth repeating:
In a letter to leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said the evidence suggests that the cost of making services such as cancer screening, cholesterol management, vaccinations and wellness training broadly available would far outweigh any savings ultimately generated.
John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, has an excellent Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal outlining his vision for a plan to reform American health care.
Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
I am lucky. Unlike many of my friends, I'm not among the ranks of the 4.1 million Canadians (about 12 percent) who don't have a primary care physician. The reason I have a doctor and they don't is because I have connections.
I haven't always been so fortunate. Although I'm in my mid-20s, for several years I made do at a "teen health center" for yearly check-ups. But then my mother began working with a woman whose husband works in the same building as a large medical clinic. This colleague (via her husband) was able to get my mom an appointment with an excellent doctor in the building. After about a year of seeing this doctor, my mom managed to get me a spot in the practice, too.
(Editor's note: The following has been republished with permission from the Foundation for Economic Education’s “Not So Fast!”). It was first printed on August 5, 2009.
By William Anderson
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman recently made an extraordinary statement regarding the application of markets to medical care. Writing in his July 31 column, Krugman stated:
The White House is serious about health care reform. They are so serious that they have asked anyone who sees “disinformation” being spread that might cause Americans to doubt that President Obama’s agenda for health care reform is good for the country to report it to the White House by emailing it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Rep. Paul Ryan is interviewed on MSNBC about health care reforms and does an exceptional job of letting people know why it’s prudent not to rush a vote on a 1,000 page bill that most legislators haven’t even read.
He also busts the myths that legislators already have access to a public option and that opposing the public plan is opposing competition in the health care market.
This 20/20 segment on health care reform aired on Friday. John Stossel talks to experts about waiting in the Canadian system, town lotteries to get a family doctor, the price of innovation and one way you can get fast access to health care in Canada. (Hint: you have to bark!)
Rodmond Huska, a man from Winnipeg, Manitoba, became ill with a bladder infection in May while visitng Colorado. He passed away on June 24, still in Colorado.
Why didn’t Rodmond go home? Winnipeg hospitals had no bed to put him in. Instead of spending his last month with family and friends, Rodmond and his family spent it fighting with Manitoba’s health care system so that he could go home.
There’s an interesting pushback against nationalized health care, coming from the state legislature in Arizona and the governor’s office in Texas. Meanwhile, state legislators across the country have also expressed their concern. Now, the idea of state action has taken root in Utah.
In "Fannie Med? Why a 'Public Option' is Hazardous to Your Health," there is an interesting admission by the White House regarding President Obama’s promise to Americans that they will not lose health care that they are happy with.
It’s not surprising that Americans don’t believe the president when he says that they will be able to keep their coverage. Even if the Congressional Budget Office weren’t reporting on reform proposals, in the past, Mr. Obama — and many members of his government – have been strong supporters of implementing single-payer health care, similar to the system in Canada, in the United States — even if they have to bring it about slowly through creation of a public option.
The UK’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to reduce the number of steroid injections to treat chronic back pain for which the cause is not known. The reason? NICE hopes that the new policy will help get health care costs in its public system under control.
In this video, an undercover camera goes along on the attempts of three men to get health care in Canada.
Actual nurses and doctors told the guys filming a few interesting things:
The video’s a bit silly, but the insight you get into what is “the norm” in the system by listening to Canadian medical workers makes it well worth watching.
One of the common misconceptions about health insurance is that health insurers, like auto insurers, can drop their clients at any point if they become too risky. In fact, health insurers must honor their plans with their policy-holders as long as the customers are up-to-date with all payments and contractual obligations.
The Washington Policy Center has released a three-part video set on health care reform.
Highlights include a shot of the actual health care bill — over 1,000 pages (no wonder there is concern it won’t be read!), an excerpt from a list of what the current legislation would pay for — including street lights and farmers’ markets — and a practical list of solutions for health reform that would avoid many of the problems of the current reform plans.
Many Americans believe that the high costs of health care are bringing about more instances of bankruptcy across the country, especially as the number of uninsured Americans rises in the recession.
According to Brett Skinner of the Fraser Institute, however, there is no evidence that this is the case — or at least, there is no evidence that reducing the number of uninsured Americans and further socializing the health care system would limit bankruptcies.
CNN Money reports on the five freedoms Americans would lose if the current congressional health care reform plan were put through:
These freedoms are significant for one very important reason: The freedoms to choose what’s in your plan, to choose a high deductible plan and to benefit from the lower health care costs incurred by someone who lives a healthy life are all freedoms that lead to choices that promote lower health care costs. Losing these freedoms in the process of reforming health care would push up health care costs even though the purpose of the reforms is to bring these costs down.
