The official blog of the Libertarian Party
July 31, 2006
Republican and Democrat Lovefest over Socialized Healthcare
From the AP:
Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it."
So what if I don't want health insurance? It won't matter, as Kerry is proposing health care at the point of a gun:
The senator said his plan will lead to universal coverage by 2012, "but if we're not there by 2012, we will require that all Americans have health insurance, with the federal government guaranteeing they have the means to afford it."
So what if I don't wish to pay for other people's poor health choices?
Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually.
So what if soaking the professionals, small business owners and others who hire people rich doesn't generate enough income to pay for Kerry's ludicrous program?
He did not immediately elaborate on how he would enact his insurance mandate, but one aid said he would do so with a requirement written into the legislation spelling out that the government covers anyone who is uninsured.
The way I see it, there would be one of two choices to pay for the proposed socialized system if the "rich" can't cover the entire tab: tax everyone or decrease (ration) services.
Do the Republicans have a better idea?
The Republican National Committee, which typically responds to political criticism of the president, said Kerry's critique ignored the prescription drug program enacted by the Bush administration.
"It's unfortunate that John Kerry's bitterness over losing the election clouds his ability to recognize the president's prescription drug plan is providing millions of seniors with more affordable medicine," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Whatever his criticism, Kerry faces the reality that the governor of his home state - Republican Mitt Romney, himself a potential 2008 presidential candidate - has not only talked about but enacted a sweeping health care overhaul designed to bring universal coverage to Massachusetts. Last week, Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, called the program "a model" for the nation.
So the choices the two parties provide are Democrat socialized healthcare or Republican socialized healthcare. Frankly, I'd prefer to pass - but what they're offering is "The Healthcare Plan You Can't Refuse."
Posted by Stephen Gordon at July 31, 2006 05:21 PM
Reader Comments:
 |
The whole problem with our healthcare system is that it does not operate in an open free market.
Doctors are paid by procedure. They submit bills to insurance companies with the procedure codes on them, and insurance pays the agreed upon amount in the contract. Patients are not seeking second opinions or shopping around, and are generally insulated from the true cost of health care. This system encourages doctors to run up bills and patients to be less than critical in their evaluation of the necessity of those procedures.
Furthermore, many medical decisions are based on highly emotionally charged short term thinking. There is currently a drug on the market that gives cancer patients a CHANCE to live another 2 to 3 months, and it costs $50k per month. If an insurance company says no, that company is demonized in the nightly news, regardless of whether or not that treatment was in the contract that the patient freely accepted.
The Republicans usually point to tort reform as the fix for the medical crisis. Though that would be a good start, it's not really the problem. The problem is lack of competition, and getting the federal government into the equation is akin to fighting fire with gasoline.
There is only ONE cure for healthcare. Changing health care to a totally free market commodity or service. Medicare and Medicaid and all other federal interventions must cease and desist. The link between employers and insurance must be broken. Insurance must only cover catastrophic level coverage with at least a $5000.000 deductible.
Yes, it does sound like bitter, painful medicine. But it is the only way to restore medicine to the free market. Consumers should pay for the products and services they consume, just as with any other item.
Ridiculously high prices, such as are present with many healthcare commodities, can only exist with the support of heavy subsidies. Generally, these subsidies are in the form of insurance payments, sometimes in th form of government payments. These payments create an artificial demand curve and of course prices soar along this curve. Pull away the supports and prices will fall dramatically. In a free market, producers can only charge those prices that a market equilibrium will allow.
Other important steps.
Eliminate patents for medicines. Prohibit government payments for research. Abolish FDA and let the free market govern the testing and certification of new drugs. Place all drugs into over the counter status. Open the borders for full importation of competing drug supplies from foreign markets.
Over 85% of familie's health problems could be easily taken care of by nurses. You know, the ones who deal with the "routine" instead of the actual doctors.
The doctors who just show up, write an Rx for whatever the nurse suggests, and adds his "services" to the bill.
It's a licensing nightmare.
It's scary that we're following in the footsteps of Canada (for example) when it comes to health care. A lot of people assume that their system works very well and never hear about the additional problems caused by their setup.
Mark B: While I agree with all of your points to lower health care costs, I think you're asking for a lot of change (in the view of the average American). And wouldn't the elimination of patents for medicine work as another reason for the pharmaceutical companies to NOT develop new medicines? I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't it be better to put some sort of limit on patents (five years, for example)?
OK... we all know it's broken. Gone are the days of the local family doctor that you trusted, that was an extension of the nuclear family. Now, it's all managed care, impersonal, and a HUGE business.
Medicine and health care need to return to the 'grass roots' of providing baseline health care in an open – free-market - environment. Until the key factors of managed care are addressed, the expansion of health care costs will continue to expand at a rate with very diminished returns.
Today, in the United States, we have to go thru a set routine just to see a nurse. If you want or need a certain treatment, doctors now look to see if it is covered, how much can they charge, and if they like the 'ethics' of the treatment.
Something is very wrong here. And it's getting worse. Kerry's proposal will only increase these issues, remove further freedom of choice from our daily lives, and NOT address the real problem.
The free-market and people's personal commitment to health care (preventative and reactive) should be in the eminent domain of personal control. Not the government's... and surely NOT the insurance company's.
Let me have the treatment options that I desire. Hold the medical profession to a standard of freedom of choice and then best of class of delivery. Hold the medical profession to a standard of information delivery. Let me make an informed and personal choice.
Get the government involved only to insure these three aspects – Freedom of Medical Choice, Excellence of Medical Care Delivery, and Information Delivery.
We were in a debate with Dem opponents in July and they didn't want to hear about free market solutions at all. I was a complete farce.
We'll release some tape of this after petitioning ends. More convention and FSP stuff too.
This is the time for the Libertarian Party. I think never before people were so upset with both Democrats and Republicans.
What the LP should fight for now is run off elections.
I am sure that most of these upset people would love to vote for a third option, but that will never happen if they think they are wasting their vote.
I am an NP and an LP.
Some of the statements made are misconstrued. And as on professional and personal level I am torn.
Insurance does suck right now in the US. Employers get tax incentives and breaks but not individuals for having insurance. CEOs (and I do not begrudge people for making money) and administrative costs exceed the actual payouts of the companies. A provider gets $8 a month per MA patient in PA, these individuals usually have multiple medical problems and require excessive monitoring.
In addition malpractice insurance rates are astronimical for providers. A provider can get sued for no fault of their own and still lose becasue of the 'sympathy' of the jury. (Edwards was the "bad baby lawyer", he sued OBs for cerebral palsy cases which can happen without any wrong doing of the physician, the cause is many times indterminate). There are bad providers and providers that make mistakes and they should be held accountable, but many times providers are not at fault.
The only reason Canada's health care works is becasue of the US, they come down here for treatment.
Right now you get screwed if you have no insurance. Insurance companies negotiate a rate for hospitals. Individuals pay full price. I.E. you got to ER, insurance pays hospital $100 of the $500 bill, you personally would be responsible for the full amount.
I could go on in more detail but I think I am rambling. Bottom line there isn't an easy fix.
| 
The whole problem with our healthcare system is that it does not operate in an open free market.
Doctors are paid by procedure. They submit bills to insurance companies with the procedure codes on them, and insurance pays the agreed upon amount in the contract. Patients are not seeking second opinions or shopping around, and are generally insulated from the true cost of health care. This system encourages doctors to run up bills and patients to be less than critical in their evaluation of the necessity of those procedures.
Furthermore, many medical decisions are based on highly emotionally charged short term thinking. There is currently a drug on the market that gives cancer patients a CHANCE to live another 2 to 3 months, and it costs $50k per month. If an insurance company says no, that company is demonized in the nightly news, regardless of whether or not that treatment was in the contract that the patient freely accepted.
The Republicans usually point to tort reform as the fix for the medical crisis. Though that would be a good start, it's not really the problem. The problem is lack of competition, and getting the federal government into the equation is akin to fighting fire with gasoline.
Posted by: Jason Peck - KS house 24th district candidate (L) at July 31, 2006 08:58 PM