LETTER: For free market health care
Published: November 3, 2009
There are two competing health care reform arguments: 1) Increased federal involvement; and 2.) Free market health care. As such, I strongly believe the free market, not the federal government can best
improve: 1) Access to care; 2) Quality of care; and 3) Lower costs. However, no Congressional legislation currently proposed actually addresses any of the concerns shared by a vast majority of the
American people. Indeed, if enacted, the current House bill, will achieve the exact opposite.
Now, what can be done differently? In brief, there are many alternatives to partial (or full) nationalization of the current health care system. A few include: 1.) Allowing interstate health insurance company
competition; 2) eliminating “pre-existing” condition underwriting discrimination; 3) promoting high deductible plans (low premium) coupled with HSAs.
Furthermore, the notion of so-called health care “overhaul” is ridiculous on its face. Successful for-profit enterprise rarely initiates widespread, costly and potentially irreversible changes, particularly in the
currently embraced Congressional “hurry up” offense. In brief, I speak neither as a Republican nor a Democrat, but as a student of economics. Therefore, we can either increase market efficiencies vis-à-
vis the right reform or bloat an already costly (and inefficient) medical system which discourages individuals to make wise medical decisions in a manner they see fit — the choice is clear.
DAVID M. MERCER
Manassas
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
45jhp,
“By your logic of HC rationing due to the ability to pay, then EVERYTHING in the world is rationed. Homes, cars, FOOD, water, electricity, oil, clothes, day-care, private school, computers, tvs, car-seats, carpet, dishwashers, flooring, building materials… Should I go on? That arguement is (pardon the expression) CRAP.“
Actually, it sounds like you’ve never studied economics or marketing. In a market-driven system, the price of goods or services is driven by how much the customer is willing to pay. That price point is a function of several things including perceived scarcity of the item (see: De Beers, Diamonds), perceived quality, importance in meeting one or more of the customer’s hierarchical needs (food, shelter, sex, social standing), accessibility of alternative goods or services, etc. Price tends to drive the availability of the good or service - the higher the price, the greater availability, with more availability the lower the price, until a median is reached.
In other words, in a market-driven economy, everything is rationed based on price. We don’t see the impact so much in this country because in fact, we do not have a market-driven economy. We have an economy which has heavy government subsidies and regulations controlling most every facet of our economy. Our food staples (corn, wheat, soy, sugar) are heavily subsidized to the point the price we pay is far below “fair market” value. Which is why you can buy a hamburger and coke for about the price of a fresh apple; The wheat, beef, and sugar are subsidized far more than fresh produce.
Ditto for anything involving consumer loans. The insurance industry is largely unregulated, particularly the health care industry. Other industries are heavily regulated to prevent the supplier from raising prices to the point certain groups of people cannot afford critical services. This would include utility companies.
So, in a free market system, if you have the money, you can get whatever you want. No money, no gettee. That’s rationing by economics.
This free-market system is compared to a socialistic h$!!hole such as most of western Europe and the Scandinavian countries, where the government ensures that there is a balance of “each according to their needs, each according to their abilities.“ So, everyone is guaranteed a basic level of food, shelter, medical care, and education to their level of ability and talents, etc. Under this system, rationing is by needs of the community.
This is why a free-market health care system will always do what ours has done - raise prices to the point people either die or go bankrupt paying for services.
If you are sick, how much are you willing to pay to get well?
Ray- Stick and Move- good way debate…
The arguement over abortion isn’t about a woman’s right to choose, it’s about a child/baby/infant’s right to live. The LEFT has made it all about the woman’s right and tossed the baby’s rights aside.
My point is very simple, if you hold on to the “my body-my choice” position, then this HC bill flies in the face of what you believe in. It’s 100% a hypocrite’s point of view to have BOTH as they can’t co-exist.
You can’t say to a woman, you have the right to do with your body as you see fit and in the next breath say that she has to buy insurance to protect that very same body.
So, logically, one could argue that the by-product of this bill which denies a person’s right to choose what they do with their body could bring about the overturning of Roe v. Wade as it is the Gov’ts position that a person has the right to choose what they can do with their body. The personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness becomes non-existent if this bill passes.
Ron,
The Washington Monthly is a “left of center” organization who’s editor in cheif was a former Clinton Speech writer. Hardly a non-partisan entity… So,I’ll take that info with a handful of salt…
We do have the best system, in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be improved upon. I’ll give you the six-month wait for a hip-replacement and raise you the denial of breast-cancer drugs for women in Great Britain.
By your logic of HC rationing due to the ability to pay, then EVERYTHING in the world is rationed. Homes, cars, FOOD, water, electricity, oil, clothes, day-care, private school, computers, tvs, car-seats, carpet, dishwashers, flooring, building materials… Should I go on? That arguement is (pardon the expression) CRAP. But, I understand your logic. So, by taking your logic, let’s create a Gov’t plan to provide the above for everyone and we’ll use Marx to decide on how to pay for it. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Work for you?
We can’t afford the Gov’t to pay for healthcare… and not risk the lives and freedoms of it’s citizens in the process.
It’s not right for the Gov’t to force it’s citizens to buy anything without conditions. This bill forces everyone living in America to buy insurance or potentially go to jail for not paying the fine… Just for living in a “free” country…
The ends don’t justify the means… There is a better way without the Gov’t running the show and forcing it’s citizens into forced purchases…
BTW, About Tort Reform as a cure for health care. here’s some info on Texas, which passed “Tort Reform in 2003:
“Don’t Listen to Texas”
[url=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0701.drum.html”>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/dont_listen_to_texas.html</a>
“Texas currently leads the nation in the rate of uninsured, with more than 25 percent of the state’s residents lacking health-care coverage. If you limit the analysis to residents under age 65, which takes seniors covered by the national Medicare program out of the data, 28 percent of Texans are uninsured.“
“Malicious Intent - How the GOP’s war on the tort system has caused pain and suffering to victims and Democrats.“
<a ]http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0701.drum.html[/url]
“[...] Victim #3 is Juan Martinez, who was killed in 1999 when a reactor exploded at a Phillips Chemical Plant in Pasadena, Texas. Dozens of workers had been killed at the plant in the previous decades, along with hundreds injured, and when his widow’s case went to trial a year later, the evidence of negligence on the part of Phillips was clear and compelling.
Jurors in the case were appalled and socked Phillips with punitive damages equal to a month’s profit for the company—a pointed warning to clean up its operations. But Phillips never paid anywhere near that amount. Thanks to a tort-reform law championed by George W. Bush in 1995, state law reduced the punitive damages by 97 percent. With no prospect of ever losing a significant amount of money for worker injuries or deaths in Texas, a simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that Phillips has little incentive to change a thing. It’s cheaper to let people die than to upgrade their plant.
[...]
So why the focus on damage caps? Take a look through a political lens and the answer becomes clearer. The lawyers who pursue small lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, run modest street-front businesses and make modest incomes. They aren’t the source of serious political campaign cash. That comes from big-time attorneys, the kind who litigate major cases worth millions of dollars. And in those cases, it’s often punitive damages and pain-and-suffering damages that make up the bulk of the recovery. These aren’t frivolous cases—far from it—but they’re the cases that generate millions of dollars in fees and millions of dollars in contributions to Democratic politicians. “
45jhp,
45jhp,
“But, most importantly, you’re still debating the Pre-existing conditions part of this… You and I agree on that… We’re on the same page. No need to discuss that any further.“
Actually, you’re my first Conservative sparring partner that has admitted we do not in fact have the bestest, greatest, more perfect health care system in the entire world.
Thank you for that.
My comment on first responders was making a point. For all the insanity and heated rhetoric by Conservatives, who in fact are comparing a public health care system to Hitler’s concentration camps, we already have a significant public sector health care system in this country. And it does,in fact, usually work pretty well.
In this country we are already rationing health care. We do it by a person’s ability to pay. You can argue whether my lady friend could have identified her cancer at an earlier stage. But she still would have contracted cancer.
Had my lady friend gotten her divorce before her cancer was discovered, I never would have met her because she would have in fact, died in her late 30s due to her inability to pay for a pretty routine medical procedure.
Don’t know about you, but I’d call that a death panel. We can do better.
Every industrialized nation, and some that aren’t so industrialized, have a publicly-run health care system. Those nations all have better health metrics than this country, and they accomplish that for less money on a national level than the US.
I’m going to give you one example of how this might work. The Conservative talking point is “six month’s wait for a hip replacement in Canada!“
Let’s look at this. A hip replacement is usually performed on an elderly person, one who’s getting ready to retire or already retired. In 2002, the typical cost of a hip replacement in the US was 35,000–$45,000. In Canada, it’s pretty much free.
So, a person in Canada needs a hip replacement, a non-life threatening condition. They hang out at home while they wait in line for the procedure. They get the procedure, and go home and enjoy their golden years pain-free from a bad hip.
Now, a person in the United States needs a hip replacement. Their insurance doesn’t cover this procedure. So they go into a hospital, hand over their credit card, and get the procedure. Same day service, no muss, no fuss, best medical care ever!
Then they spend the next ten years working to pay off their medical bill. They in fact wear out the rest of their body during their golden years paying off their brand new hip.
If it were my choice, I’d wait six months.
Your argument that we can’t afford medical care for all is bogus. The current House bill will cost about $980 Billion over ten years. We spent $680 Billion LAST YEAR on military spending. In other words, we’re looking at spending the same amount of money over ten years to give almost everyone medical care, that we spend in 18 months on our military.
We can afford public health care. We just have to redirect our priorities. Maybe we should “Choose Life?“
“Ray, thanks for chiming in… See the Dems want it BOTH ways. It’s a woman’s right to choose (my body-my choice) yet they want to take everyone’s right to choose away. Talk about confusing.“
Where you on the other hand wish to retain YOUR right to choose, yet deny that right to women .... the old Republican One-Way.
Yes, let’s talk about confusing.
chiming out ....
“In other words, people who were protesting governemnt-run health care, and comparing it to Dachu, received…government run health care.“
What kind of ludicrous, convoluted argument is that?
No one is espousing no reform ron. Most of us think we need reform, why then bring this foolish, outlandish example?
Or are you just plain out of any coherent arguments?
Couple things… I didn’t blame your lady friend, I said the cancer could have been caught earlier by the self exam. Don’t you examine yourself? I certainly do…
Can’t afford to pay for a baby? Don’t have one. But, most importantly, you’re still debating the Pre-existing conditions part of this… You and I agree on that… We’re on the same page. No need to discuss that any further.
Every other nation CAN’T afford adequate coverage. They ration care, deny life-saving drugs, pro-rate your ability to contribute to society before giving you treatment, have LONG wait times to get routine diagnostic proceedures and STILL tax their population to death. Is THAT what you want?
You’re mistaken on your Tort Reform comment. The CAP is on the amount of punitive monies. NOT on reinbursement or relative compensation for time off work, lost salaries, etc.
First responders ALL work for a gov’t agency, don’t they? The post story you cited is ridiculous in calling those first responders Gov’t Run… That’s far from a news story… It’s leftist rhetoric and frankly, Ron, it’s beneath you to even cite something like that. You’re worthy of better.
And…
“The COB states that Tort Reform would drive down cost to the current system… why are you against that? You want to stick it to the MAN?“
No. A medical mis-diagonsis or culperable accident can easily cost the victim hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in remedial medical care and lost work. Placing a cap on how much a person can collect can easiliy mean that a person could not collect enough in damages to cover the costs of recovery from doctor/hospital negligence. The only folks who make out in a capped tort system are the people causing the accidents.
Frivolous lawsuits? Let the free market fix that problem by boycotting and refusing to do business with lawyers who get million dollar + settlements for their clients for simple incidents. Oh, wait…that might not work…
45jhp,
11K is cheap compared to treatment for serious medical conditions, not something simple like a broken leg. Check out what is costs to deliver a baby now-a-days, including pre-natal, delivery, and post-natal care.
Some women can’t get heath insurance to deliver a baby because of pre-existing condiitons, such as a cesarian durng a previous delivery. Is that Okay?
“Your note about the young lady, while tragic, could have been prevented if she’d have performed a self-breast exam. You know, taken responsibility for her own body… “
Nice. Blame the patient for developing a life-threatening disease. Right in line with the Republican Health care plan:
Don’t Get Sick. If you get sick, doe quickly.
“Fact is, you want nothing more than a single-payer, Gov’t run program that will cost JOBS, raise taxes and provide rationing of care.“
Question: Why is it that every nation that has gone to a socialized medical system able to afford it? Why is it that every nation that has socialized medical care have better health metircs than the US, while spending less per capita that the US does right now?
By the way, here’s a vignette from yesterday’s do or die Capital Hill protest:
————————
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504566.html
“More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office—an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care—rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.
[...]
A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. “Join us in defeating Pelosi care!“ he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher. Boehner may have been distracted as well.
[...]
By the time it was over, medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care. But Bachmann overlooked this irony as she said farewell to her recruits. “
———————-
In other words, people who were protesting governemnt-run health care, and comparing it to Dachu, received…
government run health care.
Go figure.
Advertisement