Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Stopping the Destruction of American Health Care
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


President Obama served notice on Tuesday night that he intends a massive rewrite of the laws governing health care in the United States. Unlike the stimulus bill, such legislation will do far more damage than just the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars. Obamacare will of course be extraordinarily expensive, but far worse, it will radically alter the health care delivery system in the U.S. If the Congress and the Administration get it wrong, the best health care system in history will quickly tailspin into mediocrity or worse.

There is no reason to believe that the incompetents in Congress can successfully overhaul the health care system, or even tinker with it. The free market has produced an extremely complicated but highly effective --though expensive-- delivery system staffed by professionals who are the envy of the world. The great institutions of medicine are mostly in the U.S. The most important research is done here, the most effective drugs and devices developed here.

Other democracies have tried to impose rules on health care delivery and the results are on display in Great Britain and Canada. There is every reason to believe, though, that the United States Congress would fail even to approach the efficiency of those nationalized systems because those systems were developed for smaller populations that were less diverse than ours at a time of far less complexity in the system to be regulated. There are millions more patients and thousands more providers in the U.S. than in either Britain or Canada, and the staggering intricacy of our system should humble even the biggest ego in D.C., though of course it doesn't.

There is no way the Congress could get this right. It lacks the basic competencies to do so. The best, most recent evidence for this vast competence gap is the unfolding story of the wreck of the Consumer Products Safety Improvements Act ("CPSIA") which passed last fall and entered into effect on February 10. If Congress does for health care what it just did for consumer safety, we are all in enormous, indeed life-threatening trouble.

The CPSIA was supposed to set levels for lead and phthalates in children's toys and other products, levels that could be enforced via testing.

What it has wrought is a near billion dollars in suddenly worthless goods, a vastly complicated and expensive testing regime, and a thousand unanswered questions. The number of businesses sideswiped or substantially damaged by this feel-good law is huge. I spent an hour interviewing a CPSIA expert on my program on Monday, Gary Wolensky of the law firm Snell & Wilmer, and since then the e-mails have been piling up from all sorts of business owners reeling from the law's incredibly destructive bite. One manufacturer of pens for back-to-school season has seen his entire business put on hold by retailers afraid to stock his products. The all-terrain vehicle industry which sells an incredible number of machines to the 12 and under market has been devastated as the CPSIA unknowingly reached out and forbade the sale of such vehicles since some of their components contain either lead or phthalates. Dozens of small manufacturers of baby products, from teething rings to quilts, are on the brink of ruin. A fast food franchisee is stuck with $30,000 of worthless childrens' meal toys. The list goes on and on.

Congress had no idea it was doing these things to these businesses and thousands of others when it passed the Act. Senator Amy Klobuchar, for example, still carries on her web site a declaration of her pride in pushing for the CPSIA. "I authored three provisions of the legislation," she wrote, "to eliminate lead in children's products; to establish mandatory federal safety standards for durable infant and toddler products such as high chairs and car safety seats; and to require toy manufacturers to stamp "batch numbers" on their products to help parents identify products if they have been recalled. The law also requires more vigorous testing of every children's product sold in our stores." There is no evidence that she is aware of the wreckage brought about by her high-mindedness.

And as the law only took effect on February 10, the first of the tidal wave of plaintiffs' law suits against manufacturers and retailers that haven't complied with the CPSIA's draconian provisions began to roll out just this week.

This wasn't a complicated statute --at least Congress and President Bush didn't think so. But the Congress and the president didn't think through the unintended consequences of the law. They were responding instead to the headlines about adulterated products from China, and rather than effectively push China to clean up its manufacturing processes, the CPSIA punishes innocent businesses across the land and destroys the values of hundreds of millions of dollars of safe, excellent products while creating incentives for lawsuits by strike-it-rich plaintiffs' lawyers acting in "the public interest."

If this is what the Congress does when it legislates on the very narrow issue of lead and phthalate levels in children's goods, just imagine the incredibly destructive impacts on the far more complicated world of American medicine.

The GOP, the AMA, every related industry and business, and health care consumers have to immediately begin to organize to bring pressure on Democrats in the House and the Senate to stop the rush towards ruinous "reform." Wasted money can always be made again. An economy can regrow, and surpluses reappear.

But a health care system once operated on by this Congress will be crippled beyond repair.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

We're on the Titanic
with 536 deaf, dumb and blind captains screaming, "Full steam ahead!"

I gave up on weepublicans about ten years ago, and by their 40% of the earmarks in the omnibus bill, they still aren't listening and deserve all the scorn we can heap on them.

Maybe I'll move to Mexico. Their gubmint is looking less corrupt and more responsive to their citizens than ours.


Health care
62% want health care reformed. When ask what what they want fixed, the most common answer is, well duh well you know duh i mean duh they you know owe uh people free you know etc., etc.

This is a direct result of FREE education.

Health care and . . .
government "solutions" is an oxymoron. If you think health care is expensive now, just wait till it is "free". It is a little known fact that in the border states with Canada, there are agreements between Canadian "health plans" and American hospitals to treat Canadian citizens. A good example of this is the Detroit area hospitals have an agreement with Ontario (OHIP) to treat Canadian patients. Quite often Canadians come to the US for MRIs and CAT scans to avoid a long (and potentially deadly) wait.
When "funding" runs out at a Canadian hospital, THEY SHUT THEIR DOORS until the next fiscal year funding comes around.
If you are over 55 and need certain procedures, you will be promised them and be put on a WAITING LIST. In the meantime, the "government run health care system" hopes YOU DIE. This saves money for the "government".
Be careful what you wish for.

Mental Midgetry
Hugh, you never cease to amaze. How can one so accomplished be so stupid in public? Hmm. Might it be b/c you are a partisan hack?

So b/c you don't want healthcare for every american, you use a totally unrelated government program as an example to say the government can't do healthcare - well, two can play at that game.

The US military is the class of the entire world - its the class in fact, of the entire history of armed forces. No military has ever been so dominant, with a reach so far across a wide range of mediums. So there, that's just as much evidence that the government can do healthcare as you have provided that it can't.

And please, stop blathering about how great our healthcare system is. Its the most expensive in the world, yet our infant mortality rate is at 3rd world levels and the only age group with health outcomes that compare with the dreaded "western europe" are our seniors, who surprise, frickin' surprise, mostly have "socialized healthcare."



houlius
are our seniors, who surprise, frickin' surprise, mostly have "socialized healthcare."
======================
And gee, you see how well that's working.

Why whould a libretard care about the infant mortality rate when your ilk are aborting infants wholesale.

Who Makes Your Health Decisions Now?
The argument that people don't want their health care decisions made by government bureaucrats always neatly ignores the fact that these decisions are currently being made by Corporate America: insurance companies. In a surgical waiting room I chatted with the family of an elderly woman having an 8-hour liver surgery who, the evening before, had had to drink one gallon of laxative then get up at 3 AM to be driven the 100 miles to the hospital for her 7 AM surgery because insurance wouldn't pay for her to be at the hospital the night before. Women giving birth used to rest in the hospital for a week until the baby, the feeding, and mother's recovery were established. Patients did not used to have to climb off the operating table and go hail a cab to go home. All of these changes came, about the time of the Republican Revolution ("Profit Uber Alles") from insurance companies, who also tell doctors how long they can spend with patients and freely allow drug stores to change doctors' prescriptions to one that's cheaper. Another example of business taking over from common sense and common decency.

INCOMPOTENT CIVIL SERVANTS
VETERANS CAN NOT GET PROPER HEALTH CARE, THE ELDERY DO NOT RECEIVE THEIR MEDICINE ON TIME is the regular heeadlines in the newspapers across the country. The same incompotent health care workers are found in the patients rooms having sex, with co-workers, patients, and outside parties. Socialize medicine is only going to lead to the hiring of more sexual deviants not better treatment of any one. DNA test will show over half the health care workers have engage in a sexual act on the job, but the sadest thing it is the same rate for most civil servants no matter the profession.

Houlios1 aka Hilarious Half Wit
All Americans do have health care. The problem is that a large number of people want someone else to pay for it. If you want a better example of government run health care run amok check out the VA Hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid. A couple of years ago the MSM did exposes on VA hospitals showing rat infestation, shortage of supplies,etc. It turn out that funding wasn't the problem, a stifling bureaucracy was the problem. And Medicare and Medicaid have been subject to vast amounts of fraud and waste for years.

The reason that medical care in the US is expensive is that market forces have not been allowed to work, excess governmental regulation (not all regulation of course), and the absence of tort reform.

My employer has changed our health care plan so that the out of pocket maximums and deductibles are quite large. I've compensated by increasing my flexible spending account and by talking to my heath care professionals about costs for the first time. Less expense tests are often substituted, CYA tests are not ordered, and generic drugs or formulary drugs are suggested (not the newer ones on TV). By the way, you call out Hugh for using an irrelevant example and then you use the military to support your argument.

It will suck to be a doctor
Can you imagine the dilemma for doctors. Government beauraucrats on one side setting your pay, work rules and lawyers on the other ready to sue. In the future what bright young person would want to put in the time effort and expense to practice medicine. I expect that the US will suffer a shortage of doctors just like Canada.

I'd be more inclined to support health care reform if the President and most of the congress were doctors and not lawyers. They can't even clean up their own profession.

True Example
I used to go to a specialist who was not only a for-profit freestanding physician but a dedicated Republican who three times ran for Congress. I had a minor surgical procedure with him for which he charged me $600. Although I had had the same procecure in doctors' offices for 30 years, he insisted it had to be done in a hospital OR (he was a shareholder in the private hospital, which charged me $2000 for the OR and I had to be admitted for the day which cost another $800). I soon transferred my care to a university medical center where doctors are on salary. I had the same procedure with a professor whose credentials beat those of the private guy. The charge was $125. The procedure was done in the office in ten minutes. The idea that profit motivates the best care is silly.

Another true example
Do you want a for-profit business making decisions about your health care?

Besides the fact that our archaic system is costly and unsustainable, it does not provide the best care.

For-profit health care insurers can deny doctor recommended treatments based on their bottom line and sometimes people die.

I know someone who was denied cancer treatment and that's exactly what happened.

But the CEOs still get their bonus at the end of the year.

agilog.blogspot

Just The Facts
We are already paying for healthcare for the uninsured the question should be are we getting any bang for our buck. I just read a research report by a major brokerage firm which asserts that we could reduce healthcare costs by 30% by standardizing the computer software the medical industry uses.
We spend huge amounts of money on healtcare and receive sub-par services in relation to other industrialized countries. Costs accelerate at twice the rate of inflation. It is a broken system which cannot fix itself.

Profit is the *ONLY* reliable motivator!

Every human can be relied upon to do what is in their own best interest. The trick is to line things up such that what is in the doc's best interest is in yours as well, Which is something the free markets excell at doing.

Eventually the doc that "true example" speaks of will lose all his clients to the hospital-- or his clients will believe that his care is better and be willing to pay more. So be it.

According to Mark Steyn, the *average* wait time at the EMERGENCY ROOM in Canada is 48 hours! That's longer than it takes a kid's broken bone to reset in the *wrong place*.

Lilly, dear
the problems that you mention with idiots who have no more than a GED making decisions about your health care because they sit at some desk with a big book of what the insurance company (their employer) will or won't pay for, is REAL. My obstetrician complained of this when I was pregnant with both my children (in my 40s), and my insurance company would nor pay for the ultrasounds she insisted were necessary, given my age. (What they DID pay for, didn't cover her costs. One ultrasound cost her about $400. My insurance paid her about $250. Government was worse: Medicaid only paid her $125. She "ate" the rest.)

HERE'S THE PROBLEM: you assume that the situation will be BETTER when some idiot government bureaucrat with a college degree is sitting there with a big book of what the government (his employer)will or won't pay for.

WRONG. It will be WORSE. Because there will be NO accountability, NO appeal, NO competition, NO other insurance company to go to, and NO recourse.

Government health care? NO THANKS.

Where do you start?
How do you "destruct" the most the health care system that is the most expensive and least effective among industrialized nations?

Yes, free market forces have a place in the health care system. Why did Republicans vote to remove them from the 2003 Medicare Drug Act? In fact President Obama's plan requires insurance companies participating in Medicare to now compete.

VA hospitals were models of efficiency before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. They led the nation in computerization. The surge in their demand never got budgeted.

bruce - "The reason that medical care in the US is expensive is that market forces have not been allowed to work, excess governmental regulation (not all regulation of course), and the absence of tort reform."

Based on what? Based on the ideas that circulate through conservatives' heads? That view certainly isn't based on any nation's experience on this planet. Why hasn't a single country with universal health care voted to remove it?

And no sqtech, if you watch Sicko, you can see doctor after doctor saying that they would hate to work in the US system where the main concern is the patient's ability to pay rather than their illness.

A Right to Healthcare? If so Why?
All discussions on this issue should start with this basic question. Why does a person who contracts pneumonia or cancer or a broken bone have the right to have someone treat them for free? If not free then whose responsibility is it to pay and who gets to decide how much the treatment is worth. What obligation does the person who receives the benefit of the cure have?
An analogy would be an individual who "needs" a car to get to work. Should that person determine the price of the car? Should society pay for the car so everyone can work? Should the auto industry be forced to provide cars at less than fair market value so society can have people go to work in cars?

the problem is insurance not health care
We have excellent care in the US. The problem is access to it. 15% are uninsured.

So rather than a single-payer rationed care system, why not take steps to allow more people to buy insurance?

In Massachusetts where I live, people must buy auto insurance if they want to drive. So we have guaranteed issue. If you want to sell insurance here, you have to offer it to everyone.

But won't the insurance companies just "price out" the bad risks like cancer patients? Yes. So we need to cap the rates.

In practice this makes bad drivers subsidize good ones, which isn't fair. But at least with car insurance, you have an option of driving less recklessly. Nobody chooses cancer.

Now what about the poor? How about direct subsidies? Remember we already subsidize the uninsured by forcing hospitals to provide care even if the patient cannot pay. These unpaid expense wind up in our bills already. Might as well make it a direct subsidy that we can tabulate honestly.

Conservatives are losing this argument, and if we do lose, rationed care is coming.

There is a market failure, and that is that insurance companies make money denying coverage to the sick and offering it only to good risks. We need to fix the market failure. Treating health care insurance like auto insurance will do it.

http://mrrightwing.blogtownhall.com/


the problem is insurance not health care
We have excellent care in the US. The problem is access to it. 15% are uninsured. It's losing us the fight.

So rather than a single-payer rationed care system, why not take steps to allow more people to buy insurance?

In Massachusetts where I live, people must buy auto insurance if they want to drive. So we have guaranteed issue. If you want to sell insurance here, you have to offer it to everyone.

But won't the insurance companies just "price out" the bad risks like cancer patients? Yes. So we need to cap the rates.

In practice this makes bad drivers subsidize good ones, which isn't fair. The healthy would subsidize the sick... not fair. But at least with car insurance, you have an option of driving less recklessly. Nobody chooses cancer.

Sometimes being humane must trump absolute fairness.

Now what about the poor? How about direct subsidies? Remember we already subsidize the uninsured by forcing hospitals to provide care even if the patient cannot pay. These unpaid expenses wind up in our insurance bills already. Might as well make it a direct subsidy that we can tabulate honestly.

Conservatives are losing this argument, and if we do lose, rationed care is coming.

There is a market failure, and that is that insurance companies make money denying coverage to the sick and offering it only to good risks. We need to fix the market failure. Treating health care insurance like auto insurance will do it.

http://mrrightwing.blogtownhall.com/

momofsix
The experience of every other industrialized nation on this planet is that a universal health care system will result in better health for a lower per capita cost. This I'm-not-paying-a-dime-for-anyone-else outlook hurts yourself and everyone else.

Good points Joseph, but recall that Sicko is based on the problems experienced by the insured. As long as there's a profit motive, someone will be trying to screw people out of their rightful service.

the problem is insurance not health care
That is one aspect of the problem, but ignores others. The reason you cannot currently treat health care insurance like auto insurance is because unlike auto insurance the consumer doesn't actually participate in pricing the premiums. A third party, usually emloyers, is who controls the negotiations on price of premium. If you took away employer provided healthcare insurance, the actual consumer of the healthcare commodity would have an impact on price. Unfortunately, most Americans who have insurance provided to them by their employer or Medicare don't want to start paying for it out of pocket. Thus, the free market is and will continue to be skewed and prices will remain high, unless the actual consumer is vested in bringing prices down.

Cam
I have lived under socialized medicine in Canada, have you? You make bald statements about healthcare in other countries, but I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know anything about morbidity and mortality rates in other countries? A death or complication as a result of not being treated in time due to long waits is not counted in their statistics, because it wasn't in the "system".
You get what you pay for, and if you want the cost to be lower the care will be lower. Simple as that. Look at public education. A black hole the government pours money into with little improvement.

Health Care
Take this topic to it's logical extreme: if you cap what a doctor earns, in the attempt to 'cut costs', you will guarantee a doctor shortage. Who in their right mind would do what it takes to become a doctor (8 years of college, $100K's of cost, take themselves out of the workplace for 8 years, internship) to be subject to a capped wage? I thought the limiting factor to doctors would be malpractice insurance premiums--this tops it.

The First Question
that no one seems to bother with is what gives the Federal government any authority to even be considering this?

Where in the Constitution is there any power given to the Feds to enter this domain?

Another thing I don't understand is if the Federal government just ignores its rule book (aka Constitution)and does whatever it likes, why do any of us have to pay any attention to the rules they make for us?

US Constitution
Before you have actual shortages, you will have the lowering of admission standards to fill medical schools and a larger percentage of part-time doctors (mostly women who want families) calling it quits because it isn't worth it and doctors in their fifties retiring early. Of course, any shortages here can be made up with an influx of foreign-born doctors who think they might have a better life in the US, but who is to say their training isn't as good as the training here..:)

PV: Exactly right!!! The Constitution,

in no way provides the Federal government any authority. NONE! ZERO!

As a matter of fact, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to do MUCH of what its been doing for a long time!!!

And, even when Pres. Bush DID consult with Constitutional attorneys to see if some of his plans TO PROTECT US, the liberals were clueless!

However, Bozo's Porkie Pkg, and especially his Socialized Health Care scheme is just ONE of the many things he's doing to get us as far down the road to being a full blown Marxist state as he can before most people realize what's happened.


~ Norman Thomas, leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America wrote...

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."






what's your plan
For those on the far right yelling about "socialized medicine", you can stop it by coming up with your own plan to address what ails healthcare. The bottom line is the current system is going to collapse under its own weight - the cost increases are simply not sustainable and more and more americans will lose their coverage. We have the best healthcare system in the world - if you have insurance and can access it. If not, you're out of luck. Conservatives may not care about those who don't have insurance but the nation does and wants something done about it. If you don't like Obama's plan, where's yours? Of course you don't have one so you'll just gripe about what Obama is doing. The status quo / do nothing crowd is becoming more irrelevant everyday.

Edward
What specifically are you saying the problem is? The quality of healthcare in this country is second to none. In the private sector it is the only portion of the economy that is adding to the GDP. What is wrong with the system? If you say it is too expensive, compared to what? Inflation affects everything, and with the baby boomer growing older healthcare costs will go up no matter what we do (unless we kill off the old people who get sick with rationed care). Maybe that is the liberal secret agenda.

IS ANYONE READING "momofsix's" POSTS?

I don't think anyone... including Conservatives, isn't aware that our health care system could use some fixing!

But who says Socialized Health Care is THE FIX?

How truly stupid does one have to be to NOT SEE what's going on in other countries... England and Canada, for example!

You think medical care for profit is bad? Wait until your health care is decided on a COST BASE, and the decision maker is the govt.

How about the govt, deciding that because of your age or weight, it's TOO COSTLY to provide you with the care you need?

How about when you'll have to watch a parent or child DIE because the govt. (not your doctor) says that it can't afford to be putting that much money into health care for an old person.

Or that your child needs care that's TOO COSTLY, and you sit and watch your child DIE because the dollar amount of the treatment is off some chart?

You want to talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Socialized health care is the perfect example.


Responding to Cam
Cam,maybe Sicko shouldn't be your complete reference on health care. I'm from Canada and have lived in the US for the last 20 years. My family still lives in Canada. My father at 73 passed away last year in a Canadian hospital where his care was sub-par and I believe he would have survived in a US hospital. My mother suffered for more than a year before getting a new hip. My home town has a shortage of doctors and many people have to go to the emergency room for care.

The current system in the US may not be perfect but why scrap it and put us on a Canadian type system.

momofsix
You are correct. Whole Foods has an interesting health care plan that might be a good start in weaning us from employer provided insurance.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3602579&page=1

Anne
The biggest impediment to a solution about any so-called healthcare problem is the fact that there is no agreement as to what the actual problem is. Democrats want universal healthcare no matter what, and they will adjust the "problem" to fit that solution regardless of whether or not there is a consensus among the American people that the actual problem is lack of universal healthcare.

LobaAzul
Wow, great article. thank you for the link. I just wish it would get more attention. I think I will email my Senators and Congressman with the link.

momofsix:EXACTLY RIGHT! "...no agreement

as to what the actual problem is."

And, that is precisely the problem with this "Porkie Marxist Pkg." that Bozo and our intellectually limited liberal Congress (and three Republicans, I'm embarrassed to admit) pushed through.

It's no different from a surgeon operating on someones heart without knowing first of all IF the problem actually is the heart, and then WHAT the actual problem is, and then IF surgery is the BEST POSSIBLE solution to the heart problem.

You are right too, the "Democrats want universal health care no matter what!"

Just as Bozo (and the dems) want to take this country to Socialism-Marxism, which is EXACTLY what Bozo's "Porkie Marxist Pkg." will do, and was and is intended to do!


edward
I have a plan, I'll get a job and pay for mine, You get a job and pay for your's.

momofsix
You make a lot of sense. Having worked in the heath care system for over 20 years I can tell you that there are many factors that make the cost of health care so high. First we are all paying for the uninsured and the illegals. Second medicaid pays very little compared to the cost of taking care of the patient. Malpractice insurance is a huge factor. For surgeons and OB/GYN the cost of malpractice is unbelievable. In many cases in excess of $150,000 per year. A doctor must make enough to pay the insurance before he can even pay his staff or himself. Emergency rooms are filled with people who are not emergencies but they find it more convenient than sitting in a clinic. The list goes on and on. These are the high costs of health care. Believe me the doctors I know would happily lower their fees if they could still pay their bills. WE will not get the best and brightest is they are forced to be overworked and underpaid. Is it more important to give more food stamps or give people good medical care. Apparently this President is for the food stamps.

Diane
Overworked, underpaid, overtaxed. Most doctors are small businessman with lots of staff devoted to paperwork and they will pay higher taxes under Obama, forcing a cut in salary or layoffs of staff. Not to mention the new requirement that if they don't purchase some costly electronic medical record system they will be fined by the government. Why would anyone want to go into medicine in the future?

On Cavuto: Dr. Vinocur saying that women

in Canada with breast cancer are routinely told that they have to WAIT AT LEAST FOUR MONTHS for radiation... Thus, forcing Canadian women to come to AMERICA for treatment!

This is NOT atypical of any and all treatment for illnesses in Canada (and Eng.)

And to make matters even worse, that doesn't even take into account how long... often MONTHS... people have to wait for medical TESTS to determine what kind of treatment they need.


Reform starts with Not Doing
A quick tort reform that forces the loser in any case to pay 100% of all the costs, including lost income from wasting time in court, would quickly dry out most of the malpractice suits. Next, repeal every law and legislation related to medical care that doesn't judge the final outcome. I.E., remove everything but the ability to take a truly aggregious offense to court. Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. It was shown that after the prescription drug provision went into effect, prescription drug costs across the board rapidly increased. Cut the HMO Act of 1973, make insurance companies not just compete among each other, but compete with not accepting their services at all. Allow all insurance companies to sell across state lines.

Apparently most of Congress and our President are too young to know that medical insurance was only used for catastrophic problems, not annual checkups and that our medical system was not only highly effective, but dirt cheap.

We already have a huge government finger in the health system of this nation, that's why it's expensive and that's why uninsured is a bad word. Without them, I could drop my insurance without so much as a second thought.

momof and others
You folks talk like no one ever dies for lack of health care in the US. Lack of health cares kills 18,000 Americans every year. I know how loathe you folks are to watch The News. But I suspect you missed 60 Minutes story on Remote Area Medical, a group that was set up to help third world companies. Thousands of people waited for hours in the cold to get help when they visited Tennessee. Aren't you at all ashamed by that?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4256735n%3fsource=se arch_video

Please answer the question why no country with universal health care has ever voted to get rid of it. And on the subject of votes, we had one here last November. Two visions of health care were spelled out and Obama's won overwhelmingly.

The Swiss System
As profiled by Regina Herzlinger in her fine book, "Who Killed the US Health System" the Swiss model now has nearly a decade of keeping costs to a manageable (vs spiraling) level and coverage for all citizens.

It is based on significant wellness incentives for everyone, is managed by insurance companies with the government essentially reinsuring them for large claims.

Will Obama research viable models or listen to industry experts that have studied the problem extensivley, or doe he already have the solution? (i.e. spend and tax)

[No guarantess - regardless - that Obama's allergy to honesty and the practical may ever be cured.]

Cam - Why has no country with universal?
The reason is that it's almost impossible to get rid of entrenched bureaucracy. That's why conservatives don't want any more of them! Name one worthless part of government that we've been able to shed (although, as a California liberal you probably think that all government is worthwhile and good). The department of education is almost 100% redundant to the individual state's departments but we can't get rid of it (although Reagan wanted to).

In Michigan we border Canada. We hear horror story after horror story from our Canadian co-workers about their health care system. In one Provence, they had to sue the government for the right to pay for needed surgery out of pocket, rather than wait.

Of course, your main sources appear to be Michael Moore movies and CBS, hard to argue with those bastions of integrity.

Also, don't you find it interesting that France, Germany, and other European countries have elected more conservative leaders, while we elected an empty, socialist, dimwit.

Cam
How on earth would you know that "lack of healthcare kills 18,000 Americans every year?" Can you name one person who did and describe how they were denied care? The law in this country requires people to be treated if it is an emergency, regardless of ability to pay. You are aware that county hospitals provide billions dollars worth of unreimbursed care at taxpayer expense throughout this country are you not? This does not even count Medicaid, Chip etc.

lilly & cam
First off, Cam, what is your experience with Veteran's hospitals, because I know quite a few veterans and they'll tell you they were highly inefficient before the current military conflict, but there were fewer people so the inefficiency wasn't as onerous.

Lilly, I have insurance. I make the decisions on my health care. If my insurance doesn't want to pay or wants to pay less, I can still opt to have a procedure and pay for it myself.

My friend Carolyn's mum was denied cancer treatment because she was six months too old to meet the triage standards in England for that particular type of cancer. Her children mortgaged their futures to bring her to the US for treatment and she's now back in England with her grandchildren in remission. In England, the treatment wasn't avaialable because no doctors are allowed to operate outside of the NHS. They lose their license if caught.

My friend Molly moved from Canada for shoulder surgery that the Canadian insurance bureaucrats said she didn't need since her job didn't involve heavy lifting. While here, her American-born husband decided they should stay, in part because of our better medical care.

Our local hospital is required to cover the medical care of anyone who cannot pay. Nobody is denied medical care in this country.

Ward, maybe onto something
One research paper I read indicated that a simple, inexpensive reform would be to do away with current laws that don't allow companies to work together to negotiate better insurance prices. For example, every state sets its own insurance laws and most states do not allow someone insured in one state to be insured in another. The feds could help to break down that barrier and perhaps save money.

The other example is the one I know best. I work for a non-profit with about 120 employees. Our insurance rates are high because we're a smallish group. If we could coordinate with other non-profits in our state or nationally, we could get a much larger group and therefore, much lower rates. Again, a simple reform that makes use of our existing profit-motivated capitalism while not burdening the tax-payers with the costs and inefficiencies of universal health care.

The problem is that Mr. Obama and people like him can't see the forest for the trees. Profit is evil in their mind and there is simply no way other than giving everyone "free" medical insurance that will work. Of course, it won't be free for those of us who work for a living. We'll soon be paying a great deal more for this gov't product than we currently pay for the private product. Carolyn, from England, says her tax burden dropped by 1/2 when she immigrated. What will we do when we're paying 60% of our income to taxes, 1/2 of which is for NHS?

Electronic records a BAD idea!
I work for a psychiatric non-profit that is required to input information into our state website on EVERYBODY, including self-pay clients. Not just generic information or diagnosis, but actual notes on each encounter, detailing the intimate details of the client's lives and mental problems. I have a 2-part password I keep locked in a file in my office. The little file clerk girl could easily access that password (which is too complicated for a number-challenged person like me to memorize -- alpha-numeric-special character-yadayada), take it home, look up clients and do whatever she wanted with that information. Yes, there's laws. I'd have to prove I keep the password carefully locked up (I do, but still) and she'd go to jail, but the fact is, it's really easy to do. Anyone with a good encryption breaker could do it and the client codes are such a simple algorhythm that our agency's lawyer was able to identify the clients by that code easily using public information.

Last week, my husband's bank reported that 10,000 customer accounts were accessed and everybody's PIN numbers were stolen. If you don't think it's just that easy to access your electronic health records, you're not working in the field.

Using our heads instead of feelings
When I was pregnant with my daughter 16 years ago, I did my research and discovered that the safest form of childbirth is direct-entry midwifry. It is the least medical of the forms available in the US, has a much higher live birth rate and a MUCH lower eventual Caesarean rate. It's extensively used in Europe, where the infant mortaility rate is considerably lower than ours (in some things, but not many, those Europeans are ahead of us in medical care -- maybe because they recognize that childbirth really was never meant to be a medical procedure). Anyway, my husband's health insurance (Blue Cross) balked at first, so I presented them with an estimate and they suddenly changed their minds. When I was pregnant with my son 10 years ago, my insurance balked and stubbornly insisted that the midwives were out of their network and therefore not eligible. I could go to the nurse-midwife at a cost of 3 times more BEFORE you get to the hospital, which is as expensive as any hospital delivery, and with a Caesarean rate of 20%. I went to an initial visit with the nurse-midwife, asked for an estimate, then submitted that and and estimate from the direct-entry midwives to the insurance company. Suddenly, they wanted to include the midwife center in their network.

Some insurance company executive wrote me to tell me that proactive patients like myself who actually seek to LOWER costs usually get what they want. It's the ones who insist upon procedures they don't need or run to the doctor every five minutes who drive up the costs for all of us.

The next benefits book we got featured direct-entry midwifry as a lower-cost procedure for which the insurance company was willing to waive the dedictible and copayment.

That one incident proved to me that a lot of the problems with medicals costs in this country today are because people abuse insurance because they think it's free.

HERE WE GO AGAIN
If this guy isn't following in Chavez's footsteps,I don't know!
You talk about dismantling a country;he is!Some thought he was going to do great wonders,but so far all I see are blunders. What gets me,is none of the democrats are trying to stop this onslaught and most of them have been around long enough to know what he's up to.As if they are all in lockstep to destroy the American way of life!

so
I suppose the supporters of socialized or fascist, more accurately, medicine assert that there is an endless supply of medical care? Yes? No.

So the proposal is to shift the means of acquisition from an economically based one to a political. Yes? Yes.

The justification is kissing political egos will mean bringing down cost, which has at best a tertiary association with the distribution when measured against the goal of making access a political rather than economic consideration.

Unfortunately reduced cost, politically speaking, will be bought by mass rationing, meaning the President and those with political connection will have very fine health care, thank you, but everyone else can go sit on a stump.

You see you and me spend too much of our money on our health--and the fascists and socialists don't like our choice. They want to spend our money else where.

Bring down cost? make insurance companies compete for our service rather than go through a middle man, like private corporations and businesses, to get our business. Besides private business would like to be out of the business of which empirically they have no interest but to keep down their cost anyway.

PV and ANNE
ANNE wrote:
"PV: Exactly right!!! The Constitution,in no way provides the Federal government any authority. NONE! ZERO!

As a matter of fact, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to do MUCH of what its been doing for a long time!!!"


You are both right on. Obama himself agrees with us on that point. Do you recall that during the pre-election campaign, a recording from a 2005 Obama interveiw with NPR surfaced in which Obama complained that the Constitution says a lot about what the government cannot do to the citizens (refering to the Bill of Rights) but does not provide for what the government ought to do "FOR" the citizens??

That was an open admission that there are no Constitutional provisions to allow the government to engage in all the "social-feel-good programs that it now engages in. Obama said, in effect, they are all unconstitutional.

When I heard that comment by Obama I expected the conservative pundits to pounce on it but so far, at least to my knowledge, none have.

Go Figure.

old men
Hugh has no new ideas on how to address the cost of health care in America, and neither does the republican party. I wonder if there is even one tiny baby idea in the party of tired old men, and blowhards like Rush. You demonstrate that you are not going to be involved in the problem solving, compromising process of democracy.

What is the Replublican Answer???
Bobby Jindal said it well the other night: He is in favor of univerasal AFFORDABLE healthcare, but not socialized healthcare.

So other than a single-payer system, what would make healthcare more affordable? The only answers I hear from Republicans are things like tax credits. Really? If a family member has cancer and you have to choose between your 401k and a family member's life, is $2000 off your income tax going to help significantly?

With the current incenives & market dynamics, health insurance will be priced at the limit of affordability, just under the point where too many people and employers will say "forget it!" join the unisured, and cause a reduction fo revenue to the insurance companies. Most of the ideas that keep the current system more or less intact will only allow the insurers to increase premiums to offset whatever help is offered.

Government Health Care
Would someone point to one thing the government does well??????????? Is the VA health care for soldiers something we all want? How about a health care as complex and confusing as the IRS or delivery of timely service like the post office or DMV. These idiots who are mostly lawyers are going to FIX something they don't even understand. Give me a break, quit being partisans and realize that our elected officials make everything they touch worse and more expensive, government has no answers, they costs just go up and the service will be rationed. I do not pretend to know how to FIX health care, meaning how to bring the cost down their are some pretty smart people in the private arena studying this question, but to believe that government with a new law can fix it is a folly indeed.

The problems with socialized healthcare

I get the point, however.....
Hugh,

I totally get the point....government does do much else well, so expect Obamacare to be the same. Check. I agree.

However, health insurers have crossed the line and have a very flawed business model. Only the healthy and employed can be insured. Everyone else get in line. . I am now unemployed and tried to purchase one of thise "affordable" plans that BCBS and other insurers have marketed. I am a fairly healthy 41 year old that health insurers have declared "uninsurable" because I took antidepressants (with NO suicide attempts!!!) to control PMS symptoms. I was rejected because of this. Even auto insurers charge high risk drivers more, but do not exclude them from coverage. However, health insurers write anyone off because of a slightly elevated risk. Unless you are employed with a company that offers major medical you're screwed.

Why can't Republicans lead the fight on this issue and come up with suitable alternatives? Why is it always liberals who try to tackle this. If the Republicans would craft a plan to tackle this AS WELL AS our other conservative issues like big govt, taxes, abortion, I bet we would be back in control in 2-4 years!

Or better yet, maybe some creative entrepreneur or investor can come up with a solution that eliminates the complexity of the system, but supplies for the basic needs! Somebody has to do something before we get overtaxed for Obama care.


I get the point, however.....correction.
I meant to say in the 1st line....Government does NOT do much else well. Sorry for the gaffe.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.