View Full Version : Why Are These Health Care Fixes Ignored?
Why Are These Health Care Fixes Ignored?
Scott Atlas, Forbes, 9 Sep 2009
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/08/health-care-competition-reform-opinions-contributors-obama-speech.html?feed=rss_popstories
Strip back the out-of-control mandates on health insurance coverage.
Eliminate the counterproductive laws that restrict interstate purchasing of private health insurance by individuals and small businesses.
Create competition by lifting the veil of secrecy on the pricing of medical procedures and on the qualifications of doctors and hospitals.
Health Savings Accounts increase choice for consumers, expand individual ownership and control over health spending, promote price visibility to allow value-based purchasing, and provide incentives for savings to prepare for future health care needs.
Generate competition among insurers by revamping the tax treatment of health care expenses, so that millions of newly empowered Americans become consumers who will shop for their health insurance.
Reforming health insurance should focus on three main goals: 1) reducing the number of uninsured Americans; 2) reducing health insurance cost; and 3) creating portability of insurance during times of unemployment or job change.
BigJimCalhoun
09-13-2009, 19:27
Tort Reform is also being igored, probably because the tort lawyers support the dems.
Well, let's look at them.
Out of control mandates? In general, they are the result of past reform efforts. These may offer patients some advantages - but they also increase the risk that the insurance company will have to pay a claim. So every mandate must surely increase the cost. But each mandate has its constituency, and removing the mandates will mean that some treatment options or conditions will no longer be covered.
Eliminate restrictions on interstate purchases? OK, I guess. Presently, the insurance industry is controlled by various state insurance boards. So this would require either a new federal superstructure that would control the actions of the state boards, or a new federal agency to supplant the state boards. As a policy issue, we might wish to ask whether we want to transfer more control to the federal government and away from the states.
Create competition through increased pricing transparency? Agree wholeheartedly. We should do this.
Health savings accounts? In essence, the consumer retains the risk instead of transferring the risk to the insurance company. This is fine - for those with the means. But lack of coverage may not be a big problem for those with means.
Use tax policy to generate price sensitivity among consumers? OK, I guess. But if we really want consumers to shop aggressively, should we even have insurance? Should we not transition to some sort of a pay for service type scheme with no intermediary (insurance company) at all?
The problem, I think, lies in the statement of the problem itself.
People seem to want affordable health care with extensive coverage and no restrictions due to pre-existing conditions. The more coverage available, and the more people covered, the higher the total cost to supply it. If we choose to cover those uninsurable people with expensive diseases, then someone, somewhere must pay.
The debate is about triage. Our society is faced with a choice of how much money to spend, with the direct consequence of how many we let die, and how many we keep alive. To put a wickedly sharp point on this, we face (and will always face) a decision of how long to keep grandma alive, how much to spend on keeping the premature baby alive, and whether the person who dragged themselves into the emergency room is someone to save - or not.
Tort Reform is also being igored, probably because the tort lawyers support the dems.
Big Jim
We passed tort reform in Texas several years ago and the only thing it accomplished I can determine was increased profits for the insurance companies. Costs continue to go up. In an article several years ago in the WSJ the question was raised why malpractice insurance rates continue to go up and the reply from the companies was that the cost of malpractice suits was really only a small part of the costs. I shit you not!
I agree with every word, Rangertab1.
Our problem is this - we may still have room to make choices and time to accomplish an orderly transition.
If the U.S. finds itself in a position where we cannot continue to pile our debts even higher - and we may - then we will have to support ourselves on tax revenue alone. That means shortfalls on the order of $700 billion per year or more. ( LINK to CBO projections (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml) ). This suggests the possibility of a sudden, painful, and disorderly transition.
My opinion: we won't make the hard choices. We'll put if off until a train wreck is inescapable.
So now I'm frightening those with sensitive natures, and generally making a nuisance of myself. Time to grab a handful of appetizers and drift toward the door. ;)