Listening to Obama, one would think that Europe has a far superior healthcare system than the United States. Listening to Michael Moore, one would think our healthcare system even lags behind Cuba! What are we to do? All the experts agree, we are told. We need to nationalize healthcare. A national system of doctors would work together to deliver us the kind of healthcare Europeans and Cubans receive. Not only that but it will cost less than it does now. After all, you’re already paying for those who aren’t covered. Some say as much as $1,800 a year in healthcare costs that are passed on to you. So if we nationalize the system the healthcare will be better and cheaper than it is now, right?
Wrong.
The very premise of the argument falls apart under closer observation. Not only is the U.S. healthcare system as good as its European counterpart, its better.
According to a recent article in the Washington Times, Americans have better survival rates from both common and rare cancers than Europeans and Canadians. Not only that but we also have better access to screening and treatment for chronic diseases.
What about our seniors who supposedly stand to receive better care by the larger pool created by adding young and healthy people to the insurance rolls? The same article says Canada has an even greater disparity among treatments available for the elderly in a study of Canadians aged 16-64. In fact the same article states that the average wait to see a specialist is about twice as long in the UK and Canada. Some specialists who perform hip replacements or radiation therapy for cancer sometimes have up to a year wait.
But aren’t the people in Europe happy with their healthcare? The same article finds that More than 70 percent of Germans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and U.K. adults say their health systems needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
But isn’t something as vital as healthcare better off with all the doctors working together? Isn’t healthcare above the competition of the market? What possible good could this competition create? According to the same article, the vast majority of all the innovation in health care in the world comes out of the U.S. health-care system. The same competition that drives every industry to improve their product or service also drives the healthcare industry to improve the quality of healthcare.
OK, so maybe our healthcare system is better but what about the people who can’t pay? Wouldn’t a system where everyone had access be better than one where some didn’t? Didn’t you say we’re almost paying two grand a year for these people anyway?
Certainly the healthcare system needs reform but we need to go in the opposite direction that Obama is leading us. Competition is already stifled by an insurance system that distorts the fair market value of the services rendered. In many situations neither the doctor nor the patient knows the cost of anything from a check-up to a life saving procedure. It often depends on the insurance a patient carries. In the cost of any visit with a doctor is built in the cost of an additional administration and all the paperwork required. This cost is passed along in the form of insurance premiums. No one would order a meal at a restaurant if the price wasn’t on the menu but this is what we do every time we see a doctor!
Sound radical? A price board in your doctor’s office? It could never happen, right?
Actually many doctors have decided to stop taking insurance and have prospered. John Stossel recently reported on several doctors who found they could offer lower prices by cutting out the middle man.
The solution is to let the free market back into the system and reduce the number of claims submitted to insurance companies. Certainly insurance can still play a role. No one in a car accident or suffering a heart attack should have to play hundreds of thousands of dollars for life saving surgery. But do we really need insurance for when we have a case of the sniffles or need a yearly check-up? Let’s let competition reign and see prices fall. By shrinking the size of the insurance bureaucracy to only cover catastrophic cases we can reduce insurance premiums and make healthcare available to all Americans.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1547496.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/pardon-the-interruption/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"shrinking the size of the insurance bureaucracy to only cover catastrophic cases"
Who are we to impose that? If companies want to provide coverage for less serious cases and if people want to buy insurance for less serious cases that is their right. People need to remember that Insurance is an Industry, not a government responsibility, and certainly not a right. Dictating what shouls be covered and what shouldn't in this way is dangerous territory. Plus, sometimes major health problems start out seeiming like much less serious problems. We don't want to create incentives for people to put off getting symptoms checked out. Competition and increased efficiency is tha answer. However, the question is not how do we achieve universal coverage. The question is how to we improve the quality of helath care while increasing (not guaranteeing) access.
Post a Comment