The Right Opinion
Improving Health Care
Any day now, the U.S. Supreme will rule on whether the Obamacare insurance mandate is constitutional. Seems like a no-brainer to me. How can forcing me to engage in commerce be constitutional?
But there's a deeper question: Why should government be involved in medicine at all?
Right before President Obama took office, the media got hysterical about health care. You heard the claims: America spends more than any country -- $6,000 per person -- yet we get less. Americans die younger than people in Japan and Western Europe. Millions of Americans lack health insurance and worry about paying for care.
I have the solution! said Obama. Bigger government will give us more choices and make health care cheaper and better. He proceeded to give us that. Bigger government, that is. The cheaper/better/more choices part -- not so much.
Costs have risen. More choices? No, we have fewer choices. Many people lost coverage when companies left the market.
Because ObamaCare requires insurance companies to cover every child regardless of pre-existing conditions, WellPoint, Humana and Cigna got out of the child-only business. Principal Financial stopped offering health insurance altogether -- 1 million customers no longer have the choice to keep their insurance.
This is to be expected when governments control health care. Since state funding makes medical services seem free, demand increases. Governments deal with that by rationing. Advocates of government health care hate the word "rationing" because it forces them to face an ugly truth: Once you accept the idea that taxpayers pay, individual choice dies. Someone else decides what treatment you get, and when.
At least in America, we still have some choice. We can pay to get what we want. Under government health care, bureaucrats will decide how long we wait for our knee operation or cataract surgery ... or if we get lifesaving treatment at all.
When someone else pays for your health care, that someone else also decides when to pull the plug. The reason can be found in Econ 101. Medical care doesn't grow on trees. It must be produced by human and physical capital, and those resources are limited. Politicians can't repeal supply and demand.
Call them "death panels" or not, a government that needs to cut costs will limit what it spends on health care, especially on people nearing the end of life. Medical "ethicists" have long lamented that too much money is spent in the last several months of life. Given the premise that it's government's job to pay, it's only natural that some bureaucrat will decide that 80-year-olds shouldn't get hip replacements.
True, surveys show that most Brits and Canadians like their free health care. But Dr. David Gratzer notes that most people surveyed aren't sick. Gratzer is a Canadian who also liked Canada's government health care -- until he started treating patients.
More than a million Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets to see one. In Norwood, Ontario, my TV producer watched as the town clerk pulled four names out of a big box and then telephoned the lucky winners. "Congratulations! You get to see a doctor this month."
Think the wait in an American emergency room is bad? In Canada, the average wait is 23 hours. Sometimes they can't even get heart attack victims into the ICU.
That's where we're headed unless Obamacare is repealed. But that's not nearly enough. Contrary to what some Republicans say, we didn't have a free medical market before Obama came to power. We had a system that limited competition through occupational licensing, FDA rules and other government intrusions, while stimulating demand through tax-favored employer-based "insurance," Medicare and Medicaid.
If we want affordable and cutting-edge health care, there's only one approach that will work: open competition. That means eliminating both bureaucratic obstacles and corporate privileges. Only free markets can give us innovation at the lowest possible cost.
Of course, that also means consumers should spend their own money on health care, limiting insurance to catastrophic expenses. Americans don't want to hear it. But that's the truth.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
12 Comments
Robert in NEW Mexico
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Well said!
Andy in Raleigh, NC
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM
AMEN! And one of the biggest problems that we face - what we have is not insurance, it is cost management and dispersal. Real insurance would cover the unaffordable things that you cannot budget for, and would not touch the "well visits" and monthly allergy and contraceptive medicine. Real insurance would allow you to compare costs for elective surgeries and care and make a decision based on all the factors, because you are going to pay out of pocket, so you darn sure are going to challenge the doctor when he/she asks for 15 tests for CYA. Which brings up our other biggest problem - lawyers and a lack of personal responsibility...
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM
TORT REFORM!!! Get rid of the lawsuits and malpractice claims and costs would plumet. But then the lawyers make the laws, and they need the lawsuits to survive. Time to start electing citizens who understand business, not lawyers who legislate their business.
COS911 in Colorado
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I was US military assigned to Canada on exchange. One night I awoke with severe chest pains. Normally healthy, it took quite a few minutes to decide to call about this. I was informed that yes it should be checked out, and I should take a taxi--because if I was having a heart attack I might die while driving myself (I lived alone) to the emergency room. Once there I waited for about a half hour, then was ushered into the back to be checked. Fortunately it wasn't a heart attack. Then it took a several month wait to get further tests, like a stress test, to see if they could figure out what was going on. Lucky for me it wasn't serious. Canada’s health care system would be unacceptable for most people here in the US—long waits and many tests and procedures not generally available. Yes, they have cheaper drug prices, but less choice as well. And their cheap drug prices are subsidized by American consumers, who pay the cost of the development of new drugs—unlike the rest of the developed world. As for our longevity, quality health care has nothing to do with it as the liberals propose; it has to do with healthy lifestyles, risky behavior (like driving), and how you compile the statistics.
Jeremy in CA
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM
This makes so much sense that we can all rest assured that it will never, ever be accepted by the political class.
Rod in USA
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Well done, John. I like your straight forward and practical writing style.
As was found in the novel "Atlas Shrugged", when you remove incentives, you remove motivation. That is why Canada has less doctors - too much risk (frivolous malpractice) offset by too little reward.
The next thing once other options fail is that government will try to force people to work in health care "for the greater good". That's called slavery.
I am simply amazed at anyone stupid enough (yes, stupid) to believe in a government run economy or segment of it.
Pete in Banning
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 4:40 PM
COS911 in Colorado - I'm a disabled veteran, and like you I awoke with chest pains. When I called the VA I was advised to call 911 and go to the nearest hospital for evaluation and further transportation to the VA. The particular hospital I went to at that time was considered one of the worst of the lousy VA medical system, and a precursor of what obamacare will do to every American. Even at that I was seen within two hours, and cleared within 14. They had me in for stress tests in only a bit over 4 months.
If obamacare is what the people of America want, they are more than welcome to it. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
searchlight in Richardson, Texas
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM
John, when you say "...consumers should spend their own money on health care, limiting insurance to catastrophic expenses. Americans don't want to hear it. But that's the truth." actually, that's not a bad thing. The only kicker is that we the people must get to keep the money that normally would go to redistributive programs (taxes). With more money in our pockets (thanks to much lower taxes) we could afford the level of health care that we would choose to pay for. The best antidote for the mess we are in is more liberty!
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Well said. We Amercians could do a lot of great things if we were able to keep our hard earned wages and spend them on the things of value that we percieve -- not the ones Obama and the Dems pick for us -- like Solyndra and GM elctric cars.
It is amazing how the private sector is able to innovate, create and stay alive during this period of Democratic assault since they took over the Senate and House in 2007. I cannot wait until we have another chance at freedom in November -- but I am concerned that this criminal enterprise in the White House will do all it can to poison the well. I fear the LOST and the UN Small Arms treaty which could be signed a by lame duck Senate and by Obama--- along with the expected pardons that he will undoubedtly bestow on all his Muslim buddies.
Howard Last in Wyoming
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Why we are speaking about the Constitutionality of BarryCare, what about the FDA? I can't seem to find any authorization for it in the Constitution. Can anyone else find it?
Peter in Nevada
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 7:20 PM
I do not understand how this and many other MANDATES imposed by law escape the prohibition of "taking" prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. ("... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It seems clear to me that forcing anyone, including insurance companies, to provide something for someone else for which they will not be paid is TAKING WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. Have there ever been lawsuits resisting such obvious looting?
M Rick Timms, MD in Georgia
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 1:34 AM
Health Savings Accounts are the free market solution, combined with highdeductible plans sold nationwide. This is the solution that Republicans have been trying to advance but are completely ignored by the media and outlawed by Obamacare.
Any doctor worth your time is willing to compete on the basis of quality, price, access, vailability and service in order to get your business. HSA's with cash paying patients will be welcomed by doctors- and with tax incentives to set up an HSA, the folks get to keep thier hard earned money to spend as they want.
There is no free market competition in medicine today. Medicare sets the prices and we are all just pawns in the game. Re-imbursement to surgeons and othe physicians have decreased almost 50% over the last 15 years and yet you hear about the rising cost of healthcare. That is because of administrative and "third party" middle men and regulators, reviewers and government wonks. Everthing bad about healthcare is because of federal governmnet intervention between you and your doctor.
I can't even use my own personal microscope in my office ( the same one I used through college and med school) without paying for a CLIA waiver that is required of Medical laboratories that do up to 33,000 tests per year. I am not a laboratory - I am one doctor in an office - but I am prohibited from doing the things that I am trained to do -- by the government -- the same folks that pay me $19 for mid-level office visit on a medicare patient.
Hopefully we are near the end of this disaster and there is a ray of hope for some free market competition in the future. But if Americans want free healthcare then we are in for dark days ahead. Competition, personal responsibilty and choice, and a safety net for the needy is our only solution.