Continue the Tea Party momentum — on health care!


Congress is buzzing about attacking health care after the Easter recess. Coming off the success of the tea parties nationwide, let’s carry that momentum to the fight to protect our rights as patients and Americans.
First, for those of you who are ready to act, the practical tools to get you started. Then, the background.

1.    Sign this petition: It asks politicians to “First, Do No Harm” as they consider health reform. A quick look will give you plenty to shout about!

2.    Enter this video contest: Think about all your fellow Americans who need to understand why we believe as we do about health care. Why don’t we want the federal government making decisions about our health and controlling our insurance coverage? Make a creative video that will reach your neighbors and arrest their attention!

What it’s all about:

If you’ve been focused on Tax Day and need a little catching up on health care, we’ve got you covered. The Health Policy Consensus Group, a coalition of free-market health policy experts, put together a statement  expressing the dangers of proposals on the table. This gives a great rundown of what needs to be stopped, and why. Pass it around! [In case you’re wondering, the next Consensus Group statement will detail what we’re FOR – but first, we felt we needed to explain why we’re against these proposals.]

Some background:

Health care is a tax issue, too. We will be called upon to fund the $634-billion (some now say $1-trillion) health agenda of President Obama, and the billions for the Health and Human Services Department to head up health IT and comparative effectiveness research. But that’s only the beginning.

An individual mandate for health insurance – ordering everyone to purchase a certain government-determined policy – would carry tax penalties for those who don’t comply. In Massachusetts, where they’re a step ahead on this experiment, that annual penalty for noncompliance has passed the $1,000 mark and is rising.

Even more likely: new mandates on businesses to provide a government-designated level of benefits and to pay the piper if they don’t. Punishing businesses for hiring people isn’t the way to help workers already struggling in this economy.

Each new tax chips away at our freedom. And there are other freedoms in the balance in this debate. The creation of a public insurance program, whether it looks like a Medicare-for-all or a slight knockoff, threatens our options for health insurance. The hallmark of Medicare and Medicaid, those huge government insurance programs, is paying doctors and hospitals at much lower rates. Private insurance – that is, the rest of us – makes up the difference now, but what if private insurance isn’t around any more?

A new public (and yes, that means government-run, even though The New York Times thinks that term is fearmongering) health insurance plan would be able to set its premium prices far lower than private insurance. What business can compete with tax subsidies and severe underpricing?

Along with the artificially low premiums, a public insurance plan would more than likely pay doctors and hospitals less for their services than private insurance does. Medicare doesn’t even cover health providers’ costs. If millions more Americans join a public plan that pays like Medicare, we could face a serious crisis just to keep doctors and hospitals in business. Considering we already have a shortage of primary care doctors, this doesn’t sound like a grand idea.

You spread the word and got fired up about your taxes. Now what about your health? Your health, your freedom to make choices about your family’s health care, not to mention MORE taxes – these are worth your time.

Cross-posted at The Next Right.


‘Stimulating’ Health Care - China’s Trying It, Too


The U.S. Congress is hammering out a legislative attempt to “stimulate” the economy with taxpayer-funded health care initiatives, including information technology (IT) and comparative effectiveness research on drugs and treatments.

It looks like China has a similar — and similarly misguided — idea about linking government involvement in health care to economic “stimulus.”

The International Herald Tribune reported January 22 that China intends “to spend $123 billion by 2011 to establish universal health care for the country’s 1.3 billion people.”

Edward Wong’s article referred to an economics professor in Beijing, who claimed “more government financing for individual health care would strengthen the economy.” That sounds very similar to U.S. politicians’ promises.

“Providing universal health care is seen by some economists as a way to stimulate domestic spending during the current economic downturn,” Wong wrote. “The Chinese have a high savings rate, and one of the reasons usually cited is their concern about possible medical expenses.”

But wait — they want people to spend more on health care?

Wong reported on a 2007 study of the effect of rural health insurance on consumer behavior that “found that in government-sponsored health insurance areas, people are spending more.”

So … the government sponsors help (funded by the people) to insure all the people, but the people’s health spending should go up as well. That doesn’t sound like a way to address one of the biggest health care issues — rising costs.

Meanwhile, back in the United States, Heritage’s Robert Book put his finger on the inherent conflict in politicians’ reasoning:

“These two arguments are fundamentally at odds with each other. Advocates claim simultaneously that (a) it would stimulate economic growth to spend more money on these reforms, and (b) these reforms would reduce total health care costs–that is, result in spending less money. Perhaps one could make an intelligent argument for either proposition, but it is not possible to make both of those claims and be consistent.”

In addition to that head-spinning congressional attempt at logic, the newest “stimulus” bill may have all sorts of interesting health initiatives before the House gets through with it.

Kaiser’s Daily Report included some striking words coming out of the House on comparative effectiveness, which would pick winners and losers in the world of treatments — and ultimately, patients:

“Draft report language recently released by House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-Wis.) on a portion of the stimulus package that includes $1 billion for research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments has ’set off a firestorm’ because of concerns that the legislation would limit access to more expensive treatments, CongressDaily reports.

“The language states, ‘By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and health care professionals, those items, procedures, and interventions that are most effective to prevent, control, and treat health conditions will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and, in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.’”

That’s exactly our concern — that government bureaucrats might deem some treatments or drugs acceptable and get rid of the rest. What frightening effects that would have on the patients who respond only to a particular treatment. It would be a devastating blow to patient freedom and would eliminate the choice to find what works for each individual.

In addition to the $1 billion for comparative effectiveness research, the House has proposed $20 billion for health IT and $87 billion in Medicaid funds for states in its package thus far.


Send me your health care stories


Daschle says stories more important than "factual information"

On the ever-busy Change.gov, former Sen. Tom Daschle has posted a video talking about the health care transition team and the comments he’s received. The pick for Health and Human Services Secretary says hearing compelling personal stories is most important for urging legislators to action.

The Galen Institute, a nonprofit research organization dedicated to free-market ideas for health reform, wants to share people’s stories with the Obama transition team. What personal experiences have caused you to wish for consumer-driven changes in the health system? Would you like more options and more control over your health care?

Please share your stories either in comments or e-mail them to amy@galen.org. Let’s give some constructive, substantive feedback.