GenghisTron |
02-15-2010 03:07 PM |
I wrote this for my blog back in September, at the prime of the Health Care debate, so this was written before a lot of the data and statistics came out (Or at least the credible data), so it's not all entirely accurate/valid anymore, but my basic point stands. The problem with Health Care is efficiency, and the reason our system is inefficient is because of regulations that make up the entire industry.
Quote:
Both parties have their fair share of dishonesty and demagoguery surrounding the Health Care debate. It seems as if they both plowed right into the discussion having already made their minds up; meanwhile, there's real reform that needs to be addressed that could dramatically lower the cost of insurance, and reduce, or even remove the barriers to entry for poorer Americans. Conventional wisdom suggests that in order to solve a problem, you have to remedy the problems you currently face, otherwise idiomatically known as 'Nipping it at the bud'. But let's not fool ourselves here, we don't need to radicalize our entire health care system when we don't need to.
While the GOP is fiddling in dark disguising their support for a public-option that latches onto medicare, the Democrats are up-front about what they want -- a public option (Single payer down the road). Through all of this bickering, all we have heard from either party is solutions that work for their special interests and not the American people. There's a lot of misinformation and mudslinging, most (If not all) is unsubstantiated.
These are all solutions that would make health care affordable, prevent consumers from being 'dropped' when they become ill, and would provide a net benefit for everyone by increasing the quality of care, increasing the availability, reducing the wait times and barriers to entry, and we wouldn't have the pesky Federal Government managing our care.
Tort Reform
In a 2003 report from the Insurance Information Institute they concluded a number of things about the need for tort reform. The American tort system is the most expensive in the industrialized world. According to the report "data from consulting firm Tillinghast puts the cost of the US tort system at $205 billion in 2001, or 2.0 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, compared with 1.3 percent in 1970, and 0.6 percent in 1950. The ratio of tort costs to GDP dropped in the 1990s but is expected to increase again in the next few years. Tort costs were $721 per US citizen in 2001, compared with a cost of just $12 in 1950." The report cites another report put out by the Department of Health and Human Services stating that "An HHS report suggests that healthcare costs could be reduced by 5 percent to 9 percent if unreasonable awards for non-economic damages were limited. It estimates this would save $60 billion to $108 billion in healthcare costs each year, thus lowering the cost of health insurance and allowing an additional 2.4 to 4.3 million Americans to obtain insurance."
Tort reform is a widely-disputed issue, and the evidence, isn't conclusive if whether or not the reduction of medical liability cases is a net positive out-right. But conventional wisdom shows us that, if the number of medical liability cases were reduced drastically, the saved revenue from cheaper malpractice insurance would still remain pocketed by medical professionals, but the thing that would change is that 'defensive medicine' would cease to exist. Defensive medicine is when a doctor will order multiple tests to eliminate the .01% chance that the test they got back was faulty, so to reduce the chances of getting sued (And going bankrupt, unable to practice medicine any longer) a doctor will 'defensively' order tests and evaluations, costing the insurance companies more money, raising premiums and making health insurance more exclusive.
Term-health Insurance Coverage
Currently, Health Insurance is purchased on a year-to-year basis; if consumers were allowed to purchase based on a term, insurers would be forced to uphold contractual obligations. Another net positive, is that the consumers and insurers would be able to better predict the cost of insurance, and both would have a better frame of reference on how to keep costs down.
If consumers were able to chose a term-health plan, there could be incentives provided by the insurer to allow people to lower their costs by engaging in healthy behavior. For example, an insurance company could provide it's customers with a number of services; such as paid gym memberships, stress management classes/course (Massages/Acupuncture therapy) -- This would keep their customers healthier for longer, reducing the burden of treating them over the long-term by a lot. Incentives like these would hopefully encourage more people to lead a more holistic life style, with a heavy emphasis on preventative medicine.
Deregulate Primary Care
Do you think it's reasonable to have a Medical Doctor diagnose basic illnesses that any trained Nurse practitioner can diagnose and treat? If we removed the need for Nurse practitioners (and other qualified individuals) from needing the oversight of a doctor at a clinic, two major problems would be solved. First, doctor's offices would be less crowded (more people visiting clinics to remedy simple ailments), the result being that they'd be able to treat more patients with more pressing matters than a common cold. Second -- since visiting a clinic is much cheaper than visiting a medical doctor at his practice, the more people went to clinics -- the strain on insurance companies would be greatly reduced.
Tax breaks for Doctors
...who treat the poor. One of the biggest grievances with our current health care system is that there is 47 million uninsured people in the United States. If we gave Doctors a tax deduction off their personal income taxes at the end of the year for the amount of services they rendered to those that couldn't afford it, both parties would benefit. The Doctor won't turn away the patient that can't afford his services, and the patient, who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it, would have gotten their treatment for free, or at a drastically reduced price.
Remove Mandates on Coverage
As it stands, the law dictates that insurers must cover patients for treatments they might not even need. If you're a healthy individual, don't have heart or weight problems, why should your insurer be forced to cover you for these treatments when it's likely you'll never need them? Some people, dictated by their lifestyles, are more prone to certain illnesses and injuries. Say you're a rock climber, you obviously wouldn't need coverage for Obesity-related illnesses such as diabetes, heart conditions, blood pressure problems, etc., but you might be more subject to breaking a bone, damaging nerves, etc. The inverse goes for the obese, if you're overweight, there's probably not much of a chance that you will break a bone climbing an artificial rock wall.
Remove regulations preventing competition
Currently, insurance companies are unable to compete across state lines, undeniably making health insurance more expensive for the consumer. If companies were allowed to compete across state lines it would not only be cheaper for the consumer, it would give them more choice. Repealing some legislation (Namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and amending the Federal Tax code would be all it takes.
Make Insurance portable
...and remove perverse incentives for consumers to chose a job based on it's health plan, as opposed to finding a job based on your knowledge and experience.
Allow Drug Importations OR...
...allow doctors and hospitals to purchase drugs in mass quantities, at a reduced wholesale price. This is why (some) drugs are so cheap in places like Canada. If we allowed drug importations, drug spending would be reduced by about 1% (Doesn't sound like a lot, but drug spending is in the trillions) or about $60 billion. Either measure would reduce the price of drugs by a fair amount.
Reduce Patent Limits on Prescription Drugs
Currently name-brand drugs can be 'patented' (And Drug companies are now getting around this by repackaging a brand-name with a generic and giving it a new name, thus extending the patent) for 20 years. If we reduced that time span, and allowed generic manufacturers to compete, drug prices would be drastically reduced.
|
The funny thing is, you can see whose side the politicians are on when you look at their recent voting record on health care. In early to mid December, a bill was voted down to prevent drug importation from countries like Canada (Where the majority of the Democrats voted against it, and killed it). If it isn't blatantly obvious by now that the Health Care plan going through Congress isn't a blatant attempt at rent-seeking, well, maybe you should turn off MSNBC and FOX news, and read some credible news sources. Politics as usual... Real reform is overlooked, and instead we are going to be forced to throw our money at monolithic corporations once again.
|