I keep hearing the argument that "The United States is the only developed country that does not have universal health care", or "People are going bankrupt to pay for health care."
To the first I say "so what?" Things can work (sort of) in countries where people are used to the government being mommie, but is a disaster in any country where people have any sense of personal responsibility or freedom, and therefore can not work in the U.S. until the spirit of independence has been pounded from us.
While the powers that be are trying to do just that, I will fight against it. Instead however I have a way that will provide high quality, affordable health care for the vast majority, with charities able to pick up the slack for those truly in need, thus eliminating the worthlessness of government involvment.
Tort reform. A huge part of the cost of health care is that it's just to easy to sue. Whether the doctor, the drug company, the medical equipment supply company, or whatever else. This not only causes them to raise prices to offset the cost of malpractice insurance, fighting the lawsuits, paying out huge settlements and loosing idiotic lawsuits (hot coffee is hot anyone?), but also the large numbers of medical procedures that are only necessary to preemptively reduce someone's ability to sue, massive increases in R&D costs for drugs unnecessary testing, for much the same reason, likewise for medical equipment and supplies. While you don't have to purchase it, the hospital does, and passes the cost on to you.
Some have estimated the over all cost of the litigiousness of our society as totaling over 80% of medical costs. While that sounds totally exaggerated to me, even if it's 20% that, enough to give anyone pause.
Allow health insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. This increases competition, and increased competition is always good for the consumer.
Also related to insurance, ban group health insurance. While this would appear to increase the out of pocket to the individual, the idea that your employer actually pays for your health insurance is an idiotic lie. He does not. You do. They just hide it from you. If employers didn't have to give the money to your insurance company, they would be free to give it to you. They would also be free to give you the cost of administering that health insurance plan. You would actually end up with more money.
There's more however. Health insurance companies would have to compete for your dollars individually. Charge too much? It goes out of business quickly because no one would use them. Not cover enough? Go out of business as customers make an exodus. Annoy doctors? Loose customers when no doctors accept that insurance. Things would regulate themselves rapidly, and there would be few who couldn't find some form of health insurance, and those who couldn't should be few enough that private charities could cover most of them.
This is more of a general business regulation, and one of the few that I think business needs. That is a strict truth in advertising law. Not just fines, but massive fines for the company AND primary stockholders, and massive fines AND jail time for those involved in the deception is necessary. This would not only preempt any deceptive tactics insurance companies would be tempted to use to get customers, but would also pretty much end a lot of the other problems liberals are always calling for strict regulation for this or that for.
These changes would make health care affordable, they may be the opposite approach of other countries, but the constitution was the opposite approach any other country at the time. Going the other way seems to work for us.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
I just watched a PBS (Proletariat Broadcasting System) special in a class I Subbed for. It was on “Government health Care” Basically socialized health care. It explored the socialized health care in several systems, touting that there are “real market solutions” to the problems critics of a socialized health care have raised.
I can’t speak to all of the information they put in it, but it was somewhat dated (from around the time of the election), had some seriously dated information. Only glowing reviews of the English system were shown, however there were several parts that were inaccurate at best. It stated that England has a longer life expectancy than the U.S. This is true. It’s about a year longer, and it just counts age at death rates. That means that the serious problems the U.S. has in the inner cities with a murder rate that leaves a male born in certain areas a life expectancy of 18 years is counted in the U.S. figures. England has a serious gang problem, but the murder rate is no where near ours. This skews our life expectancy lower. No matter the medical system, murder it isn't going to help murder.
The other problem was that nearly every country surveyed, mandated that everyone had to purchase health insurance. While I find the idea flat out chilling in any case, and it was clearly before the court decision was handed down stating that such is unconstitutional, there was no mention of the potential constitutional problems with such an arrangement. This from a supposedly reputable journalist. He didn't even think of it.
It's clear that the progressives see the constitution, not as something to guide and restrain government, thus keeping it from becoming tyrannical, but rather an obstacle to their goal of total government. They only think of it when it gets in their way.