Will Obamacare reverse the Decline in the Growth Rate of Health Care Spending?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Believe it or not the rate of health care spending has been falling since 2002.  Thanks to the innovation of free markets (see Health Care Cost Inflation Is Slowing, But Obamacare Could Change That by James Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute, posted 2/16/2013 on Business Insider).

The rate of health care spending has been falling since 2002. AEI’s J.D. Kleinke points to some factors which are likely responsible: a) lots of breakthrough drugs from the 1980s and 1990s became widely available in generic form in the 2000s; b) health insurance plans became more diverse, giving consumers more choice, such as health savings accounts; c) the IT and networking revolution has improved disease management.

To sum up: Innovation — both in technology and products and processes — has slowed the rise in health care costs. Is the ACA and its expanded government intrusion into the sector likely to sustain and accelerate innovation or retard it?

Hmmm, does more government intrusion accelerate or retard innovation.  The U.S. Postal Service is going broke.  But UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc., aren’t.  People hate going to the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew their driver’s license as it can take an hour or more.  But you can go into a crowded Starbucks and leave 10 minutes later with a custom-made espresso-based drink.  While having enjoyed pleasant conversation with the baristas while you waited those 10 minutes.  Health savings accounts are bringing down health care costs in the private sector.  While Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.  People are saving for their retirement using things like 401(k)s.  While Social Security is headed for bankruptcy.  Hmmm.

Clearly the innovation is in the private sector.  As it appears the less government intrudes the better and more enjoyable things are.  So Obamacare will NOT sustain or accelerate innovation.  But retard it instead.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

Thieves are Stealing Medical Equipment and Personal Information from the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Thomas Jefferson did not like having money and government get too close.  Because history is strewn with examples of corruption whenever money and government come together.  From padding the federal payroll to spending money to buying votes to outright graft.  Which is why Thomas Jefferson would have opposed Obamacare.  For he would have thought it was not the federal government’s business to provide health care.  And he definitely would not have wanted the federal government spending that kind of tax money.

We spend a lot on health care.  About $2.6 trillion today.  And another bad thing about spending that kind of money?  Government bureaucrats just aren’t that good at it.  So you know Obamacare won’t be as good as the health care provided by the private sector.  Just look at what’s happening in the UK to see the future of Obamacare when the government takes responsibility for $2.6 trillion in health care spending (see The great hospital robbery: Defibrillators, baby heart monitors, even beds – thieves are walking out of NHS wards with vital equipment by John Naish posted 9/24/2012 on Mail Online).

The great hospital robbery: Defibrillators, baby heart monitors, even beds – thieves are walking out of NHS wards with vital equipment…

Experts suggest they are spiriting it abroad, to Eastern Europe or even as far afield as Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, shockingly, NHS staff are sometimes involved, acting as an ‘inside man’.

But if such thefts are not scandalous enough in themselves, NHS chiefs appear to be so blasé about the losses they don’t even have a national picture of how much equipment is being stolen, let alone a comprehensive anti-theft strategy…

To make matters worse, NHS trusts can’t claim for the stolen property, says Sarah Bailey of the Association of British Insurers.

‘The NHS does not tend to take out commercial insurance policies. Instead, it “self-insures”, which means it absorbs the cost of its losses, rather than taking out policies that could be expensive.’

As she points out: ‘Ultimately, it could be the taxpayer who funds those losses.’

Of course government bureaucrats aren’t going to get excited about theft.  Why should they care?  It’s not their money.  And it’s not their job.  Besides the losses won’t come out of anyone’s pay.  They’ll just pass the losses on to the taxpayers.  Something they can’t do in the private sector.  Which is why they take loss prevention a bit more seriously in the private sector.  Because there is accountability in the private sector.  And profits.  So they put people in places to minimize anything that will reduce those profits.  Like theft.  Something the NHS appears to be not overly concerned about.  Pity.  For they are stealing more than just medical equipment.

Laptops used by hospital staff are the most frequent target of hospital thieves, which could mean millions of people’s personal details and medical records have fallen into the hands of criminals.

In June last year, for example, NHS North Central London admitted that an apparently unencrypted laptop, containing details of more than eight million patients, was one of 20 machines reported stolen from a storeroom.

When computer thefts result in the loss of sensitive information on patients, this has to be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the independent public authority set up to uphold information rights.

Figures from the ICO show that the NHS is the top sector for such losses, with significantly more incidents than the whole of the private sector put together…

And this is the future under Obamacare.  Greater inefficiencies because of theft.  And greater theft of personal information.  Which there will be a lot of available to steal as Obamacare digitizes all our medical records.  So as we move to national health care it will cost more and we will get less.  As they spend a lot of our tax dollars to replace stolen equipment thanks to the lackadaisical attitude of the government bureaucrats in charge of Obamacare.  While we spend more to replace what others steal from us thanks to their lackadaisical attitude about securing our personal information.

Sure, some say Obamacare will do better than the NHS.  But to them I say the NHS probably does national health care better than most.  And after doing it since 1948 they’ll be able to do it better than the Americans will be able to do it just starting out.  Only it will be a lot harder than it was in 1948.  Thanks to an aging population raising the cost of health care.  And the sophistication of the bad guys in stealing from the system.  No.  Obamacare will be a far cry from the NHS.  So as bad as anything is in the NHS just remember that Obamacare will probably never be that good.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The US has 5 times the Population of Britain while Spending 15 times on Health Care than the NHS

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 23rd, 2012

Week in Review

The British are successfully cutting their health care spending.  The NHS is stronger financially.  Even running at a budget surplus.  But it wasn’t easy getting there (see NHS trusts in debt double in year by Nick Triggle posted 9/19/2012 on BBC News Health).

The Audit Commission report said 31 trusts posted a deficit – more than one in 10 of the hospital, mental health and community trusts in the NHS.

The figure is up from 13 the year before.

However, overall the health service posted a £2bn surplus – about 2% of its budget.

The development comes amid an unprecedented savings drive.

The health service has been told to save £20bn by 2015 – the equivalent of 4% a year.

If you crunch the above numbers and convert into US dollars the NHS annual budget comes to about $162 billion.

According to Kaiser total American health care spending came to about $2.6 trillion in 2010.  Most of which the private health insurance industry paid.  Which is about 15 times what the British spend on health care.  Even though we only have about 5 times the population of the UK.  That means that either the British are much better at delivering cost-efficient health care.  Or a lot of people go without health care in the UK.

One would have to assume that once the Americans turn over all health care spending to the government their spending will have to be brought into line with British expenditures.  Because few can do national health care as well as Britain.  So based on population US spending should be 5 times the British spending.  Or $810 billion.  Which would call for a cut of $1.79 trillion in annual health care expenditures.  Or about 69% of current spending.

Standard and Poor’s said the US needed to cut spending by $4 trillion over 10 years to prevent a downgrade of their sovereign debt rating.  Or $400 billion a year for 10 years.  And they couldn’t do it.  The government could not make these spending cuts.  And S&P downgraded their sovereign debt rating.  If they couldn’t cut $400 billion they will not be able to cut $1,790 billion.  Which means when the private health insurers stop paying these health care costs they will go straight to the deficit.  Perhaps doubling or tripling our current trillion dollar deficit.  Resulting in a handful of new credit downgrades.  And completing the transformation from world’s number one economy to banana republic.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Foreigners using Britain’s Free Health Care are making that Free Health Care ever more Expensive

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2012

Week in Review

National health care systems are straining budgets everywhere.  As countries constantly cut costs and improve efficiencies.  To keep their floundering systems afloat.  And every time they think they’re getting their costs under control something like this comes to light (see GPs ‘threatened with legal action’ for taking failed asylum seekers off surgery lists posted 5/3/2012 on The Telegraph).

It emerged in an investigation which revealed that more than £40 million is owed to NHS hospitals by foreign patients who were not eligible for free care, research indicates…

Freedom of Information requests by Pulse revealed the average unpaid debt for the provision of care to foreign nationals was £230,000 in the 35 trusts which responded.

If this figure was the same across all 168 English acute trusts, the total debt would be almost £40 million, the magazine claimed…

In response to the figures Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GP committee, said trusts must put in place arrangements ”that ensure people cannot exploit the system”.

A spokesperson for St George’s told Pulse: ”A high percentage of our patients require life-saving trauma, neuroscience, cardiovascular or paediatric care…

”It is too simplistic to call it health tourism. The reality is a lot more complex.”

The investigation comes days after campaigners warned GPs had too much freedom to register sick foreigners who may not be entitled to expensive British healthcare…

The group’s chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ”To allow such easy and potentially hugely-expensive access without any entitlement must be stopped at once, otherwise the NHS risks becoming the World Health Service.”

The National Health Service (NHS) is the biggest chunk of Britain’s deficit.  So not only do they tax their people heavily they borrow heavily as they are already facing an uphill battle.  An aging population that is living longer is consuming ever more health care services.  And they don’t need to add more to a straining system.  Especially when they are not paying any taxes to fund the NHS.  Or paying any taxes to service the debt that funds the NHS.

Even when the health care is ‘free’ someone has to pay for it.  Because nothing is truly free.  All of this free health care is pushing Britain to the breaking point.  As Obamacare will push the U.S. to the breaking point.  Based on current exchange rates and population differences between the UK and the US, Obamacare could expect a foreign patient loss of approximately $325 million annually.  Or more.  Probably a lot more.  Especially if it’s treat first; bill later.  For people already travel to the US for the best in health care treatment.  Just imagine the health tourism when that care is free to American nationals.  And treat first, bill later for everyone else.  When it becomes difficult to say no.  Because saying no will bring in the lawyers with discrimination lawsuits.  So it will be treat first; bill later.  And based on the UK experience, a large percentage of those bills will go unpaid.

With a large budget deficit already exceeding one trillion dollars all of this health care spending will fall directly to the deficit.  Making it ever larger.  With no hopes of ever reducing it.  Especially when Obamacare evolves into the World Health Service.  Which we can’t afford any more than we could afford being the world’s policeman.  So when will it end?  This ever increasing government spending?  Soon.  And it won’t be pretty.  Because there just won’t be enough people to tax to service the accumulated debt.  And pay for Obamacare.  As well as everything else in the bloated federal budget.  Then the debt defaults will start.  Followed by the collapse of the banking system.  And then the depression.  Sort of like the Great Depression.  Only with a massive welfare state collapsing on top of it. 

But on they spend.  These old people.  Taking comfort in the fact they will be dead before the collapse.  So only their children will suffer through the experience of the oncoming economic carnage.  So not only are they bad stewards of the people’s trust.  They’re bad parents, too.  And if they sacrifice their own children what hope do we have?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Raising the Debt Ceiling may be Worse than Default

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 30th, 2011

Despite U.S. Debt Crisis, U.S. still the World’s Safe Asset of Choice

As Congress debates over the debt ceiling…blah blah blah…Armageddon.  Funny thing is, the U.S. debt problem is not that bad.  When compared to the debt problem in Europe (see Err, over here by Schumpeter posted 7/29/2011 on The Economist).

AS THE August 2nd deadline for a resolution of America’s debt-ceiling row approaches, other news is being drowned out. America’s debt debacle provokes rubber-necking fascination but the euro crisis is still the bigger threat to financial stability.

The chances (admittedly diminishing with time) are that America will get its house in order and avoid default; and that a ratings downgrade will happen but not threaten the pre-eminence of Treasuries as the world’s safe asset of choice. In contrast, the euro area’s crisis is already in full swing and policymakers, as this week’s issue of The Economist makes plain, have not found a way to stop it.

Things are worse in the European Union.  Especially the Eurozone.  And though Armageddon is at hand in the U.S., we’re still the “world’s safe asset of choice.”  So the end of the world as we know it may not be at hand.  But the out of control government spending and debt is fast approaching European levels.  So if we don’t cut our spending and reduce our deficits, we will follow lockstep behind Europe into fiscal ruin.  And then, of course, Armageddon.  

Partisan Democrats decry Republican Partisanship

So this Republican partisanship needs to end.  They need to be bipartisan.  Like the Democrats.  That is, when they’re not being partisan themselves (see For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling by Byron York posted 7/30/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

A look at Reid’s record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000.  Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control…

At look at Durbin’s record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines.  In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.  As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate.  He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

So the Democrats have a history of being just as partisan as the Republicans.  Even now, as they decry the Republican’s partisanship, they refuse to compromise at all on what they’ve always wanted.  More taxes.  And more borrowing.  So they can spend a lot more.

Democrats open to Compromise, as long as it’s the Republicans doing the Compromising

And they’ve drawn a line in the sand.  No meaningful cuts without new taxes (see Senate Kills Debt Bill, Bipartisan Talks on Hold by Steven T. Dennis posted 7/29/2011 on Roll Call).

“We’ve got a closet full of triggers,” he said. But, he added, “I came to the conclusion that we are negotiating with ourselves. The Republicans will not agree to any triggers that have any revenues in it.”

And Reid noted that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand against any cuts to entitlement programs without revenue.

The Republicans refuse to raise taxes because America is still wallowing in the Great Recession.  Democrats refuse to drop their request to raise taxes.  And flat out refuse to cut entitlements.  Like Social Security.  Medicare.  And the new Obamacare.  Because, though fiscally responsible, it’s not politically expedient.  Which is going to become a BIG problem soon.

Repeal Obamacare and all our Current Troubles go Away

Health care spending will take the U.S. to European levels of spending and debt (see CMS Projections Confirm Runaway Health Care Spending by Kathryn Nix posted 7/29/2011 on The Foundry).

As the economy recovers and the major provisions of Obamacare kick in, national health spending is projected to grow at quite a clip—increasing, on average, 5.8 percent each year. By 2020, the nation will spend $4.54 trillion on health care, or close to 20 percent of GDP. (For the sake of comparison: In 2010, federal tax revenue totaled 14.9 percent of GDP, and all federal spending combined amounted to 23.8 percent of GDP.)

Of course, every cloud has a silver lining.  An S&P report calls for real spending cuts of $4 trillion or more over 10 years to avoid the credit downgrade.  And look at this.  Obamacare will cost $4.54 trillion over some 10 years.  Imagine that.  Save the AAA bond rating.  Leave Social Security and Medicare intact.  And all you have to do is cut one program that no one is receiving any benefits from yet.  Repeal Obamacare.  And all our current troubles go away.

Or you can Devalue the Currency

Of course, that’s one way of solving the current crisis.  There appears to be another.  One that is a bit more destructive (see Answers to the 7 big “what-ifs” of debt default by Lauren Young posted 7/30/2011 on Reuters).

Traders say Asian central banks, among the world’s biggest dollar holders, have been steady buyers of alternatives to the dollar such as the Singapore dollar and other Asian currencies as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars. “Foreigners are at the vanguard of the drop in the dollar,” says Dan Dorrow, head of research at Faros Trading, a currency broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut. “I don’t think anyone expects a catastrophic U.S. default. But a downgrade will make them more aggressive in moving away from the dollar…”

The bottom line? It will be more expensive to travel overseas, drink French wine or buy Japanese cars.

A little trade war anyone?  A weak currency is like a tariff.  It makes imports so expensive that we stop buying them.  And buy American instead.  Thus increasing U.S. GDP.  And there is a corollary to this.  Can you guess what that is?  Here’s a hint.  It does something to our exports.  And our vacation market.

Fixing our Economy by Destroying other Economies

A weak currency not only makes your imports more expensive, it also makes your exports less expensive.  Which helps your export market.  And encourages people to vacation in your country because those stronger, foreign currencies can buy so much more (see U.S. Economy: Growth Trails Forecasts as Consumers Retrench by Shobhana Chandra posted 7/29/2011 on Bloomberg).

The improvement in the difference between imports and exports added another 0.6 point [of U.S. GDP].

Overseas sales will remain a backstop for factories. Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), the largest U.S. chemical maker, said demand is “strong” in markets abroad.

“We captured strong growth in Latin America, and the emerging geographies more broadly, while North America experienced moderate growth,” Andrew Liveris, chief executive officer, said on a July 27 conference call with analysts.

So perhaps this is the grand plan.  Increase spending to unsustainable levels.  Incur record debt.  This spending and debt triggers a downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt.  Which devalues the U.S. dollar.  Which places a de facto tariff on imports.  And provides a subsidy for our exports.  And it makes the U.S. a vacation destination.  Until our trading partners retaliate for fixing our economy by destroying their economies.  Like everyone is saying the Chinese are doing by keeping their own currency weak.

Repealing Obamacare would Please the Credit Rating Agencies

So the only bright spot in the U.S. economy is other economies.  Where they’re experiencing growth.  And can easily afford U.S. goods.  Which is about the only market buying them these days.  But for the world’s largest economy (for now) to rely solely on exports can be a bit risky.  Especially if it triggers a trade war.  Which, incidentally, helped trigger the Great Depression.

No, it would probably be more prudent to keep that AAA rating by cutting spending.  Before we spend ourselves to European ruin.  That’s the key to everything.  In particular cutting the fastest growing government expenditure.  Health care.  Which makes repealing Obamacare made to order.  No one is benefitting from it yet.  So no one will even notice this cut.  Other than the credit rating agencies.  Who will stand up and applaud this action. 

For just raising the debt ceiling doesn’t solve the real problem.  In fact, raising the debt ceiling without the $4 trillion in spending cuts will just push us closer to European ruin.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Health Care and the Deficit: Government Bureaucracy vs. Market Forces

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 12th, 2010

Birth Control and Abortion Bankrupting our Nation

Health care is expensive.  When it comes to the federal budget, nothing costs more.  And its cost will only increase (see Health Care and the Deficit editorial published 12/11/2010 on The New York Times).

This year, Medicare, Medicaid and a related children’s health insurance program will account for more than 20 percent of all federal spending — higher than Social Security or defense. Unless there are big changes, by 2035 federal health care spending — driven by rising medical costs and an aging population — is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the budget.

Politicians are whores who steal from the American people.  Earmarks, kickbacks, patronage, fat pay and benefit packages, uber generous pensions, whatever.  The bottom line is that they’re screwing us while they live a far better life than we ever will.  And as bad as their screwing of us is, their screwing of us ain’t the worse of it.  It’s the entitlement spending that’s gonna bankrupt us.  Especially healthcare spending for old people.

Thanks to birth control and abortion, the American people shrunk their family size starting with the boomer generation.  Instead of 10 kids in a family we started to have only 2 or 3 kids.  And it is this reduction in family size that will ultimately bankrupt our nation.

Cutting Medicare Because Nothing else is Big Enough to Cut

Thanks to birth control and abortion, we have an aging population.  The kids of families with 10+ kids are aging and reaching retirement.  But the kids of families with 2-3 kids are paying their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  More people are collecting benefits than are paying taxes to fund those benefits.  BIG problem.

When FDR implemented the great Ponzi scheme, Social Security, a bunch of people were supporting each beneficiary.  As the population ages, fewer and fewer people are supporting each beneficiary.  So they have to keep raising taxes on each individual.  But there is a limit.  Eventually, an individual will have to pay more in taxes to support a retiree than they spend on their own family.  And few people will whistle a happy tune when more of their hard-earned pay goes to someone else instead of their own family. 

If we’re not having more babies, then we gotta cut costs.  There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it.  So they’re talking about cutting costs.  By making us pay more for our benefits.

The White House commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, proposes to wring nearly $400 billion from health care spending between 2012 and 2020, of which the biggest single element — $110 billion — would come from increased cost-sharing by Medicare beneficiaries. The second commission, an independent panel headed by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, seeks to save $137 billion from Medicare cost-sharing.

So even though Obama denied it over and over again, they’re going to cut Medicare.  Why?  It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.  To make any significant cost savings you gotta cut something big.  And few things are bigger than Medicare.

Taxing our Health Care Benefits

They’ll cut Medicare.  And raise taxes.

The Domenici-Rivlin panel, the more aggressive on health care, would also phase out the exclusion that exempts workers from paying taxes for employer-subsidized insurance, a benefit that also encourages excessive use of medical care. The long-term gain in tax revenue could be huge — more than $3 trillion between 2012 and 2030 and almost $10 trillion by 2040.

Few people don’t realize how much their employer pays for their health insurance.  They will now.  Though they won’t be getting a big pay raise, they will pay taxes as if they had.  That’s right, they will tax the total cost of your health care benefits as taxable income.  Even if you never see a doctor.

Wither on the Vine

You know things are bad when they propose something their enemy once proposed.

The Domenici-Rivlin panel has a far-reaching proposal to give Medicare enrollees vouchers to buy coverage from Medicare or a competing private plan offered on a Medicare exchange. The voucher would increase in value at roughly half the likely rate of medical inflation. If the cost of coverage rose faster than that, the beneficiary would have to pay an extra premium to cover the difference or seek a cheaper plan.

Sound familiar?  Newt Gingrich proposed this.  Back in the 1990s.  He said that as more people voluntarily enrolled in private insurance Medicare would wither on the vine.  Of course, the political opposition said Gingrich was just trying to kill senior citizens.  So his proposal was defeated.  And here we are.  Same problem.  Only more costly to solve now.

Competition Makes Everything Better

The big problem with health care is that there is no competition.  No market forces.

The commission believes that competition on the exchanges will cause insurance plans to find ways to lower premiums. It also believes beneficiaries will restrain their own spending. The panel projects savings from premium support and its near-term cuts and cost-shifting could be huge — more than $2 trillion through 2030 and more than $7 trillion through 2040.

Competition makes everything better.  And there’d be more competition now.  If the government didn’t forbid it.  For it is the government that forbids insurance companies from competing across state lines.

Can you Say Death Panels?

A spending cap is just another way to say rationing. 

The health care reform law already seeks to cap the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary to roughly half the rate it has been increasing in recent decades. It empowers a new board to find savings should the target be breached, subject to Congressional veto. The Bowles-Simpson commission would expand that approach by placing a cap on total federal spending for health care — not just Medicare and Medicaid but the subsidies on new exchanges and tax exemptions. But the commission punts on what to do should the growth cap be exceeded, as many experts deem likely.

This board will have the power of life and death.  They will say who will live.  And who will die.  They can deny it but that’s what rationing is.  We have enough healthcare services for one person today.  Who will get it?  The 39 year old factory worker who has many taxpaying years left (so the government can recoup its ‘investment’)?  Or the old retired guy?  Hmm.   The old retired pain in the ass who won’t hurry up and die?  Or the young guy that we can squeeze more taxes out of for another 20 years or so?

Cut Out the Middle Man

They have big hopes for Obamacare.

The best way to lower health care spending is to reform the dysfunctional health care system whose costs seem unrelated to the quality of care delivered. The reform law makes a good start, sponsoring research to determine which treatments are effective and which are not, starting pilot projects to change the way care is delivered and paid for, and setting up new organizations to rush successful approaches into wide use in Medicare and ultimately the private sector.

The problem with health care is that we approach it from a cost standpoint rather than a quality of care standpoint.  No law or board will change that.  Real competition would.  Such as allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines.

One thing not mentioned by the New York Times is tort reform.  If we keep the jackals off of the doctors, they can spend more time administering health care instead of enriching ambulance chasers.

Perhaps the greatest cost control measure we can take is to cut out the middle man.  Have people pay for the services they receive.  Health care insurance is supposed to be insurance.  Not welfare.  It is to protect us from unexpected catastrophic medical expenses.  Like cancer.  Not to pay for a doctor appointment because we have the sniffles.

We Need more Market Forces.  Not more Government.

Increasing the size of a bureaucracy never made anything more efficient.  Price caps never made anything more plentiful.  And having someone else pay your bills never gives you the best quality.  That’s why we say beggars can’t be choosy.  Because we give beggars crap.

To fix our health care insurance woes we need to introduce market forces.  Not more government.  Medical savings accounts and tort reform would go a long way in fixing our problems.  As will competition across state lines.  And, of course, repealing Obamacare.

And we need to pay for our health care services.  For when we pay we seek the best value for our money.  Because we give a damn.  Unlike a disinterested government bureaucrat.

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,