Wednesday
March 10, 2010
Health Care: Responses to recent healthcare legislation
President Obama is keeping a promise. A cornerstone of his campaign, the Democrat candidate pledged to provide health care for all Americans. Congressional efforts to deliver on that promise have sparked debates in Washington and across the country. Check out news coverage of the August “Town Hall” meetings and the “Tea Party” protests for a measure of public reaction.
Health care is expensive. Even having insurance is no guarantee medical expenses will remain affordable, a lesson learned after my recent trip to Ball Memorial ER. Another truth, we are a compassionate people. Americans generally do not like to see others suffer. We are the first to show up after a disaster or tragedy, whether in the Gulf Coast or the South Pacific islands. Unfortunately, health care reform has become politicized.
In recent weeks, Congress has been debating a dozen different plans to make health care affordable, accessible, and available. The average cost of these plans is over $1 trillion each. The debate essentially contrasts a market-based system and a government-managed plan, with one side celebrating the virtues of private competition and the other side preferring a taxpayer-funded approach. The perimeters of the debate encompass those without insurance, between 20 and 45 million, and those underinsured. Most insured Americans prefer their current plans and their personal physicians. And the epicenter of the debate is the “public option.”
We are indeed the only industrialized nation in the world not providing universal health coverage. And many people from overseas travel to the U.S., offering cash payment for treatments denied back home. We really do have the best health care system in the world. But our health services cost twice the rates of other nations. Health care providers and insurers make excessive profits. Actually, physicians’ profit margins are between eight and ten percent, and the major insurance companies average profits just over two percent. (Drug companies are a different story.) Nationalized health care will destroy the private sector, even capitalism itself. Never mind that the U.S. Post Office faces stiff competition from FedEx, UPS, and other private carriers, and the free market survives.
Easily overlooked, the “public option” is already here. Millions of Americans receive taxpayer-funded care through Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, Social Security, and the Veterans Administration. Most states provide health services; Tennessee and Massachusetts cover all residents. Today, 11 million children have access to medical care through CHIPS. Even prisoners are provided taxpayer-funded health care. And no one can be turned away from an emergency room, regardless of ability to pay. In total, fully half of our health care spending comes from public sources. Perhaps other countries do a better job. Not so, according to many people from those countries, some of whom are part of the IWU community. Overall, the Canadian system is described as hopelessly inadequate, the prisoner of its own bureaucracy.
Critics of socialized medicine object to both aspects of the “public option.” Government-funded “public” health insurance is actually taxpayer-funded coverage, essentially subsidized medicine. And taxpayers who prefer private insurance will, in truth, be paying for both services. Just how “optional” the government plan will be remains a point of contention. Similar assurances were made years ago with Social Security, Medicare, and the Canadian health program.
House Democrats recently approved a plan calling for revenue collection to begin immediately, but services to be delayed until 2013. The Senate version actually delays services until 2016. To reduce costs, the House plan significantly cuts Medicare expenditures; now you know why retirees are angry. The House plan even requires vendors to post outside vending machines nutritional information for each and every item. Disturbing to some, abortion services are permitted under its “public option.” Several Congressional Democrats threaten to oppose the measure if abortion funding is not specifically excluded. Most plans require every American to have health insurance or face a financial penalty, an edict which may be unconstitutional. For those favoring a taxpayer solution, Congress does not have a good track record helping ailing industries. Consider the banking industry, mortgage companies, and car manufacturers and retailers.
Perhaps we can bring down health care costs the same way we bring down other insurance costs. Homeowner’s policies are not meant to repair broken windows or replace hot water heaters (I did both recently); and, car insurance is not meant to repair a flat tire (mine was repaired at Tire Barn last week). Car insurance companies reward safe drivers; providers of homeowners insurance encourage smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. Higher deductibles can reduce premiums. Along with these strategies, health care providers prefer cash payments, thereby avoiding tedious paperwork and lengthy payment delays. Both sides should agree, health care needs to be portable, not tied to employers. Consumers should be able to shop for prescriptions, services, and plans throughout the country and around the world. Caps should be placed on malpractice settlements, ending physicians’ fears of jury-imposed bankruptcy and reducing “defensive” medical practices. Preexisting conditions should be accepted by all insurance providers but factored into policy formulation. Consumers should be rewarded for making healthy choices and avoiding harmful lifestyles.
News Flash! Our government ran out of money years ago, but has continued spending. Our national deficits have accumulated into a multi-trillion-dollar debt, now financed by foreign governments. But the spending continues, including with this proposal. Such behavior on our part, spending beyond our means, would result in serious jail time. Of course, then we would have government-provided health care.
Consider these Related Articles:
Tags: world news
