Competition can fix our health-care-access woes

Ripped from the wires ... Devon Herrick provides another counterpoint to the Isaacs argument below (Medicare for all the ideal health-care solution), in addition to the excellent article to which Daniel links:

By Devon Herrick

DALLAS -- As a new Congress begins to look at health-care insurance options, some of the members are already discussing proposals for a single-payer, universal health care plan.

That's not the best solution. Senators and representatives would be much better off focusing on health-care solutions that effectively bring down health-care costs, expand access to quality care, and reward patients for shopping around.

Advocates of single-payer health plans want the U.S. government to be the only entity that pays for health care: With Uncle Sam picking up the tab, proponents predict health-care spending would be reduced, administrative burdens would be eliminated, and doctors would be free to practice as they wish.

Do they really believe that adding another major program to the federal government would actually eliminate administrative headaches and make it easier for doctors? We need only to look to our neighbors to the north, in Canada, for a clear view of what we could expect under a single-payer system.

The biggest problem is the wait; for office visits, diagnostic tests, lab work, even surgeries.

There are only so many doctors and so much medical equipment in Canada. That means that most patients can't get the help they need when they need it. At any given time, nearly 750,000 Canadians are waiting for a medical procedure. According to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, 42 percent of Canadians with chronic illnesses said they had to wait more than two months to see a specialist. Another major problem faced by those in a single-payer system is the health risk that is faced by participants.

A recent study by the Fraser Institute indicates that much of the health technology in Canada is aging and outdated. Such equipment has a higher risk of failing, may be less accurate, and may not provide the most up-to-date medical readings. As consumers, all we want is health care that is reasonably priced, of high quality and that is convenient -- without having to wait months on end for needed surgery.

Many of us already have had experiences with limited access to health care -- through HMOs. Such plans tried to control health costs by controlling which doctors patients could see, limiting the specialists that one can visit, and reducing the options that were available.

It didn't catch on because few Americans like limited health-care options. We want to make our own choices, based on what's best for our health and our wallet.
Instead of wasting time on a system that limits our choices, creates long waiting times, and has the potential to jeopardize our health, the United States should opt for a system of innovation and choice.

The best reform would liberate doctors to meet patient needs in innovative ways, free patients to become smart shoppers, and allow a competitive medical marketplace to allocate resources, while raising quality and lowering cost in the process. Mandates should be avoided in favor of making more options available through consumer-driven health plans. Most such plans include the expansion of health savings accounts to encourage greater participation. Patients with health savings accounts are significantly more likely to talk to their doctor about treatment costs and options, track their health-care payouts and estimate future expenses.

So, would you rather make your own choices on medical care and cost options or delegate the quality, cost and timing of your care to the federal government? Now is not the time to move ahead with proposals for single-payer, universal health care. Nor is next year or the year after that. Instead, Congress should act now to let American consumers -- not federal bureaucrats -- make their health-care decisions. When we force medical providers to compete on price, we're all much better off.

Devon Herrick is a senior fellow specializing in health-care economics at the free-market oriented National Center for Policy Analysis (www.ncpa.org).

Comments?

Comments

[Denney Clements]

The obvious riposte to Herrick's arguments is that under Medicare, doctors, not bureaucrats, make health-care decisions. This is the main reason seniors love it do much.

dc

[DanielC]

Thanks for the counter point post Denney. (spelled it right this time. *wink*)

In the article I linked in the other post:

Canada point ~
"...
For example, I work in Allegany County, Maryland, and we have three MRI devices in this county of about 80,000 people. I have had two MRIs done, which were performed the same week my doctor scheduled them for me. Montreal, Canada, on the other hand, has about 3.6 million people in its metropolitan area, and there also are three MRI devices, one for more than a million people. Anyone needing an MRI there has to wait at least six months.

...

(As I pointed out earlier, there is a logical reason that Montreal with more than three million people in its metropolitan area has as many MRIs as has Allegany County, Maryland, where 80,000 people reside. Under socialism, capital becomes a liability, not an income-producing asset.)
..."

Mr. Anderson explains that in a "single-payer" system capital investments such as MRI equipment become not an asset but a liablility. Why invest in saving time, money, and effort when you will not make a penny more.

In the case of the Fed's regulation of price/cost:
"...
Furthermore, the welfare state “ideal” was growing quickly, and in 1965 Congress passed a number of welfare measures as part of the Great Society package that Lyndon Johnson was demanding. Among the measures that passed was the Medicare Act, which made the government the “single payer” for health-care services for persons 65 and older.

At the time, I recall vividly that many doctors complained of “socialized medicine,” and predicted Medicare would doom their profession. However, in at least the short term, Medicare has been an income boon to physicians, who quickly found out that the government would pay almost anything doctors charged for their services. Thus, instead of the dreaded “socialized medicine,” doctors were given the Great Sugar Daddy, and the race was on.
..."

As has been seen time and time again, the Federal Government does a horrible job with the "free money" printed by the banking cartel (aka federal reserve bank) which adds devaluation of our payroll via inflation and taxes via Federal Debt to the private bankers.

We only have to look at the current Paulson/Bernacke debacial to see what happens when the government attempts to fix what the bankrupt court should be fixing in the case of the New York Bankers. Paulson has "changed" his failed from the start plan to now be buying preferred stock ownership (capital investment) in the "favored" nine banks.

I really think that a very small, very controlled (via the Constitution), and very fiscally sound Federal Government would go a very long way to fixing our current woes. Me and some close to 2 million others that voted for Mr. Constitution (Ron Paul). *wink*

Once again, thanks for the counter-point. The Anderson article is better in regards to more details.

Sincerely,
DanielC

[DanielC]

Denney,

I went back and re-read Article I -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

Don't see one thing about Medicine. I see a lot about making sure what is currently happening in Washington DOES NOT happen, but nut'n 'bout feeding, clothing, paying, medicating, schooling, building roads, building agencies that creat defacto laws, deferring creation of money to private banks. Yeppers, nut'n like that in that thar dockumint.

DanielC

[Denney Clements]

Daniel: My point about Article I is that Congress can legislate whatever it wants, including publicly funded medical care. The Framers didn't think it necessary to spell out everything the legislative branch might tackle, though they did spell out basic functions pretty carefully in a balance-of-power sort of way. But those functions leave a lot of room for "creativity," as we have seen the last two centuries.

Anyone aware whether Medicare ever came under constitutionality challenge before the federal courts? I've not heard of any such cases.

dc

[Patrick Hill]

Competition can fix the education system and the automobile industry, as well. Has General Motors become part of the Department of Transportation?