Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Free Market Approach To Healthcare

Do we need healthcare reform - yup.
Do we need more government intervention - nope.

In fact - with medicare and medicaid essentially going broke, and other government managed healthcare models worldwide producing rationed healthcare for their participants, that should be reason enough to see that publicly funded healthcare doesn't work well at all. It's expensive and kills competition (as well as people). It drives up costs.

Doctors in this country already are paid less by Medicare and Medicaid, than it costs them to treat their patients. Some doctors won't even participate in those programs. Many doctors are already thinking of leaving medicine because of the high cost of doing business as a result of more and more government regulation.

We have to find new solutions - but more government is not one of them.

The Cato Institute says:
The right health care reform must be founded on free-market solutions:
- the freedom to purchase health plans across state lines;
- effective tax credits;
- making health insurance portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer;
- changing medical licensing laws, and more.

CATO offers some good ideas


Lori said...

Yes, I spent yesterday on the phone with my doctor and insurance company working out an option that I decided was best for me. I got what I needed and what I wanted. It's MY health. The only way to improve it is to give me more options and choices, not less! It's MY health, I will take care of it with the advice of my doctor, not some bureaucrat! Cato does have some good ideas!

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I spent yesterday on the phone with my doctor and insurance company working out an option that I decided was best for me."

Why did the insurance company bureaucrat have input into the healthcare decision -- shouldn't that be between you and your doctor? Why do you find it acceptable for the insurance company to have a say in your healthcare? What if they had decided not to pay for the option that you and your doctor decided was the best one?

FYI, the "public option" is just that -- an option which you can choose to take, or not. If you chose not, fine -- keep the insurance you have. You might get a benefit from the public option anyway, in lower costs for the insurance you already have due to competition.

Since you already happily accept bureaucratic intervention in your healthcare decisions, and since you won't be forced to change anything in YOUR coverage -- why on earth do you have a problem with the healthcare reform that's on the table?

Do you simply want to deny other people an option?

Roger said...

We all know the "public option" in this current healthcare legislation is the doorway to exterminate private options by creating an unlevel playing field subsidized by taxpayers.

Look, the "public options" - Medicare and Medicaid are going broke - and government is already trying to lower benefits. This healthcare bill's "public option" is an expansion of an unsustainable model. Have you ever gotten care from a VA hospital? It sucks. Have you ever gotten care from Medicaid? It also sucks, and while it is sucking for patients, it is underpaying it's providers. No wonder Congressmen would never agree to sign on to the healthcare plan they are looking to approve for the rest of us saps.

Basically this bill is a payoff to GE, and it's subsidiary GE Healthcare, for support to the Obama administration, just like the energy bill. And this is also why NBC news anchors, et al., are also in the tank for this crap - because they too work for GE.

Miss Roxie said...

"We all know the "public option" in this current healthcare legislation is the doorway to exterminate private options by creating an unlevel playing field subsidized by taxpayers"

I don't know this. How do you know this?

Also, my FIL passed away this year. He was 92. He'd been going through Medicare for many years. No problems. Great doctors and facilities, except for one rehab, and when we said we would like him out of there, he was out of there. Our experience was not a bad one. with Medicare is my point.

Anonymous said...

My mother is on Medicare and she has had no problems -- with the exception of the Bush-instituted "donut hole" medications payment problem, which the current bill addresses. She sees the doctors of her choice, gets the care they recommend immediately, and has not had to argue with faceless insurance company drones over whether or not it will be covered. Her primary care doctor, whose clientele is largely made up of Medicare recipients, doesn't seem to be suffering financially. In fact, he lives pretty damn well.
Our experiences with Medicare for the seniors in our family have all been positive.

David Aron said...

Miss Roxie... Read Page 16 of the Bill. Your private health care plan CANNOT be changed once the public option is put in place. The company cannot change benefits and if you leave it, you have to go on the public option. How can consumers bid down prices and bid up quality if they cannot leave one plan for a better one?

Anonymous... The current employer-paid system is an outgrowth of wage and price controls instituted by Roosevelt during the Great Depression. HMOs and insurance companies were given tax incentives and subsidized by the Clinton Administration. High insurance costs are a result of mandated coverage and a disconnect between producer and consumer that leads to the over-consumption of health care. High doctor's fees are a result of high malpractice insurance premiums, which are a result of the courts awarding unreasonably high malpractice damages to patients. Doctors also perform more tests than needed in order to cover their asses in the case of malpractice, which increases costs to insurance companies and bids up insurance premiums. Prescription drug prices have been bid up by government restrictions and extraordinarily high R+D costs enforced by the FDA. So if you want to point a finger at how we got here, look no further than your friendly National and State Governments.

FREE MARKET health care would be individuals going to their doctor for check-ups and minor injuries, paying in cash (or check) and shopping for the best insurance coverage and hospitals for catastrophic injuries.

Anonymous said...

"Over consumption" of health care? Would you explain that? Are you saying people have too much access to health care? That they go to the doctor too often?
Who decides what "over consumption" of health care is?
Are you advocating limiting people's access to health care to stop them from over-utilizing it?

What government restrictions have "bid up" the costs of prescription drugs?

What is the cause of "extraordinarily high" R+D costs and how are they enforced by the FDA?

Do you believe that there should be no regulations/restrictions on prescription drugs?

Let's see: "malpractice" is, at its most basic, improperly treating a patient. I don't think any of us wish to be improperly treated, resulting in catastrophic injury or death. If multiple tests are required in order to diagnose and properly treat a patient, why is it a bad thing for doctors to order those tests? Would you prefer that your doctor performed fewer tests, misdiagnosed your condition, resulting in inadequate or incorrect treatment?