« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Healthcare Doesn’t Need European Style Austerity Measures; It Needs Free-Market

“If our goal is to be shielded from any cost of healthcare, we will ultimately be exposed to all costs of healthcare.”

Nothing typifies the inane cycle of government dependency and poverty more than the issue of healthcare.  Given that healthcare constitutes 18% of our economy and that millions of Americans are languishing under its crushing costs, it is important that we articulate healthcare reform from a position of strength.  We must demonstrate how it is socialist interventions in the marketplace that are responsible for high costs.  We must demonstrate how our policies will bring costs under control.

When discussing entitlements, conservatives must remember that the goal of healthcare reform is not to merely cut its costs to the federal budget; it is to alleviate the burden of government-run healthcare on the entire healthcare sector.  Any proposal to tweak the outlays for programs such as Medicare, without fundamentally reforming their anti-free-market structure, will only achieve minor savings, cause pain for those suffering from healthcare inflation, and incur the wrath of the largest voting bloc.

Medicare is socialized medicine for those over 65 in all but name only.  Its very presence in the market as the 800-pound gorilla has a counterintuitive effect of driving up the cost of healthcare, thereby forcing people to remain dependent on its broad shoulders.  Unless Medicare (along with Medicaid) is reformed as a defined contribution voucher system, instead of an open-ended market distorting behemoth, any attempt to raise the eligibility age or cut benefits would severely squeeze older healthcare consumers.

Now we learn that such a proposal would fail to stem the unsustainable trajectory of Medicare costs.

Last week, CBO published a report which suggests that a plan to gradually raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 would save $148 billion over 10 years.  That may sound like a large sum, but when compared to projected outlays, it is infinitesimal.  According to the most recent CBO budget outlook, Medicare outlays will top $7.4 trillion over the next 10 years, with a 75-year unfunded obligation of $35 trillion.  And that is probably a conservative estimate.  Thus, pulling the trigger on raising the retirement age and incurring the wrath of seniors will only reduce outlays from $7.4 trillion to $7.25 trillion.  We’ll be broke before we reach that point anyway.

Raising the Medicare eligibility age is much less effective than raising the Social Security retirement age because socialized medicine – on every level and for every age group – will induce inflationary pressure on the entire healthcare sector.  As the system is currently constituted, many “young seniors” who are retired would not be able to afford health insurance without Medicare, and would be forced onto Medicaid.  The CBO estimates that one-quarter of the $148 billion in savings would be wiped out by increased Medicaid spending.

Medicaid’s stranglehold on the marketplace is already increasing as rapidly as Medicare.  According to a new report published by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), even though overall healthcare expenditures slowed in 2010, primarily due to the recession and joblessness, government’s share of healthcare spending has increased rapidly.  The culprit?  Medicaid spending; particularly, federal Medicaid spending.

In total, the government (federal, state, and local) financed 45% of all healthcare expenditures, private businesses funded 21% of expenditures, and personal households accounted for 28% – a historic low.  Even part of the business and household share of the financing went towards payroll taxes and premiums which fund… government-run Medicare.  Accordingly, over 55% of all healthcare spending is controlled by the government.  And that is before Obamacare takes effect.

Are you starting to see a pattern yet?

What we really need is a complete overhaul of the self-perpetuating inflationary government healthcare entities by transforming them to free-market voucher systems.  That will drive down costs on the entire healthcare sector, and by extension, will save trillions in superfluous taxpayer-funded spending on third-party entities like Medicare, Medicaid, and SChip.  An unencumbered marketplace under a pure voucher system (as described in the original Ryan Roadmap) would be superior to the premium support system of government-run exchanges.  It would certainly work better than the revised Ryan plan (Ryan-Wyden), which retains the current Medicare system as an option within premium support.  Nonetheless, any reform that introduces more market forces into the system will create downward pressure on healthcare inflation.

Free-market healthcare reform would also necessitate the elimination of onerous government mandates, such as issue guarantee, community rating, and other one-size-fits-all directives that encourage or coerce insurance companies to guarantee coverage and offer similar prices to every individual and every family.  We must also remove the barriers that preclude consumers from buying insurance across state lines.

How destructive are these meddlesome mandates on the private sector?  They distort the market to such an extent that, despite the decrease in demand for healthcare (as a result of the bad economy), premiums still skyrocketed to record highs.  Private insurance companies are recouping the front-loaded costs they will incur under Obamacare mandates, even before they take effect.  This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts with Romneycare.

Other reforms would include block granting Medicaid to the states and allowing them to use funds to convert Medicaid and SChip to private insurance vouchers, converting VA benefits to vouchers for private insurance (but supplement all extra costs), and eliminating the tax incentive gap between employer-based insurance and personal insurance.  The last reform would involve either the elimination of the employer tax exclusion for health insurance, or the extension of that deduction to individuals who buy health insurance.

Finally, we need to encourage personal responsibility by restoring health insurance to traditional high-cost coverage from its current status as a primary source of payment.  Expansion of high deductible health plans and health savings accounts will help reduce third-party market distortions and expose consumers to the actual costs of the services provided.  According to the CMS report, only 11% of all health expenditures are paid out-of-pocket.  That needs to change.  If our goal is to be shielded from any cost of healthcare, we will ultimately be exposed to all costs of healthcare.

Once we institute these reforms, which will generate downward pressure on the cost of healthcare and health insurance, we can discuss raising the eligibility age and cutting benefits to wealthy seniors.  It’s good policy, and while entitlement reform will never make for great politics, free-market reforms that drive down costs are easier to sell than pure austerity measures in the current socialist system.

Austere socialism will only accentuate the high cost of living with more poverty.  Only comprehensive free-market reforms will save our healthcare system.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • lineholder

    My understanding at this point is that it isn’t only the drop in employment within the private sector that has contributed to the expansion of Medicaid…it is also the requirements that have been set forth by DHHS to try to push states and health care organizations to become “enrollment agents” for Medicaid. (Question: are they looking at this as a way of moving forward to mandate greater enrollment in government-run health care on the outside chance that the individual mandate is determined as being unconstitutional?)

    Plus, in an effort to reduce the projected subsidy costs for the public health exchanges, DHHS has increased the upper limit for Medicaid enrollment, passing this responsibility, along with the costs, down to the states. (Question: How are individual states, especially those who are already carrying high burden of costs for government-funded health care provisions dealing with this so far?)

    And this doesn’t even begin to take into consideration the explosion of costs we will be seeing when preventive care elements kick in!

    Personal note: I’m just a HI student, but all we get is this rose-colored analogy about PPACA that is painted repeatedly by our instructors without ever hearing about the downside of the legislation or the long-term implications. I keep your articles about healthcare in a file and share them, with other students, so that we can be better prepared for facing the real world out in the career field. So keep it coming, sir. And thank you very much!

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    You hit the nail on the head. With the raise in Medicare eligibility, we would be back to this same song and dance in less than 10 years, closer to eight. What is needed is the complete trifecta. Raise the Medicare eligibility to 67, as a start. Remove the Obamacare provision that requires insurance companies to cover adult children until 26 (which just adds to their expense and is passed along to the consumer). Remove the issue guarantees that force extremely ill patients to be covered the same as healthy patients (which drives up the cost for all patients). Raise the social security retirement age, as a start. Then get started on a method to remove it altogether.

    Medicaid is the tough spot. We (the GOP House and the future GOP Senate) must work to cut funding. I know it is not popular to say that. But it is the only way it will ever be reigned in.

    Excellent post.

  • deVere

    “Free-market healthcare reform would also necessitate the elimination of onerous government mandates, such as issue guarantee, community rating, and other one-size-fits-all directives that encourage or coerce insurance companies to guarantee coverage and offer similar prices to every individual and every family.”

    Without either an “individual mandate” for everyone to purchase medical insurance, or alternatively general societal agreement that people without insurance and assets will be denied medical services, it simply won’t work. It is a fantasy. Ideology does not trump reality.

    I also think it would be very helpful for full tax benefits to be limited to high-deductible insurance, and that low-deductible insurance which drives up medical costs be discriminated against, to the extent it is still allowed to be legal.

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      you hit the nail on the head. Until a politician is willing to stand up and run on a platform of “if you cannot afford it, you don’t get it, no exceptions”, anything else is just another non-free market.

  • greyeagle

    I hope you are not recommending private individual policies. They are usually not worth the paper they are written on. They often cover very little. If you use buying exchanges across state lines and have large pools, then group policies can be utilized. States control insurance companies in that particular state. Health Savings Accounts are not appropriate for families whose member or members have a chronic disease like asthma or diabetes, let alone an autoimmune disease. You can not defer enough money to cover those costs. Health Savings Accounts only work if the individuals are healthy. This is a known fact by people who work with insurance as I have for years. Do not assume that people on Medicare don’t pay anything for care. Again, a fallacy. They have to pay for Part B, in other cases for part A, a supplement is needed and a drug plan is needed, plus payment of co-pays, medications and most face decrease income during these years. So healthcare consumes a large percent of Seniors budgets. Right now Republicans and Democrats are racing to see who can cut the most of medical care for Seniors. I have been in the Medical Profession for 37 years and know the ramifications of some of these ideas.

  • hutch2

    as the old saying goes, you can’t just get a little bit pregnant. Either we revert back to an absolute free market health care system or we adopt an absolute government run system (God forbid). You can’t have a little of either as they distort one another. Case in point – my father spent three days at Cedars Sinai a few years back after a suspected stroke (turns out he had fainted from dehydration). A month later, Medicare sent out an explanation of benefits which stated the hospital stay tallied a whopping 45K. Medicare covered 12K and his private supplemental picked up 3K. So Cedars got 15K of the 45K they billed for. Wow! They just took a 30K dollar loss. What a hospital! Yeah right. What they, and all hospitals do, is jack up the cost of each procedure by 300% because Medicare’s payment algorithms set a price control that will only cover 33% of the cost. Price controls at their worst. So, in the end, Cedars gets their money but the price of the procedures are now 3 x’s what they should be, which hits people who don’t have health insurance the hardest. You get the government, and therefore price controls, out of the market and you’ll see health care costs come way down and remove all the fraud, over-billing, and other nefarious schemes that huge sums of “someone else’s money” always invite.

  • ihateliberals

    Our system under the free market is what has fueled every major medical discovery of the 20th century. Without the USA’s free market system of healthcare the socialistic systems wouldn’t have the advances they enjoy now.

    People keep trying to compare us to the UK and France and Germany and that is like saying and apple is an orange. When you look at the amount of people in just the UK compared to the amount in the USA there is a huge gap. The UK has around 65 million people comaored to our 365 million. If the UK had to have that many people in it’s system it would have failed many years ago instead of waiting until now. If you combined the population of Germany France and the UK you still only have 211 million people. If Obamacare isn’t repealed and goes into full force in 2014 you wil see the UK’s, Canda’s and many other European style systems collapse and our wil follow suit within a couple of years after that, Innovation on the part of drug companies wil slow to a crawl and people will soon begin to die. simple medical procedures wil be put onthe back burner while the government tries to figure out how to take care of the major items.

  • larryco123

    Daniel,

    Great article, you are definitely on the right track but I would like to clarify a few things or frame the conversation differently. Medicare cannot be truly classified as social medicine because people do pay a premium for it and they pay just under 1.7 % of their gross income or adjusted gross income x 2 either by their employer of themselves through self employed tax obligation. This equates to a little over 300 billion in revenue against 790 billion in current expenditure. In addition, we have 1.6 million people entering the medicare rolls every year. This will raise our Medicare obligation to over 1 trillion dollars with an increase in revenues of only 2 billion in additional premium collected.

    These figures do not reflect increases in other obligations like social security or medicaid but if it did, we would consume the entire revenues collected just under 2.3 trillion dollars in 10 years with just these three entitlements before we spend one dime on anything else.

    What is it going to take to wake up all of our leadership to these facts on both sides of the aisle and create the sense of urgency to implement real solutions immediately. The path of self destruction is already upon us and nobody seems to have the courage or the ability to wake up the media and the public to our impending doom.

    A partial solution won’t work. The voucher system is a good start but what would be the catastrophic exposure to the vouchee. I believe that would have to be clarified better, but i do agree that once the consumer knows what things are costing them even through a voucher account where they will have some responsibility to pay something will immediately begin to address fraud, waste and abuse. You are going to have to include tort reform in this solution so that doctor and providers dont have open ended liability for seervices rendered. You will also have to end requiring hospitals to provide service for anyone that walks in and allow those patients that don’t have life threatening illnesses or injuries to be triajed somewhere else for 1/10th the cost.

    You will also have to force the hospitals to keep one set of books not two so that the actual cost of services are charged not the amount they need to write off less the amount they are paid. Also you will need to offer legislation making it easier for people to get their diagnostics authorized quicker from the insurance companies so that managed care will have no drawbacks to any consumers in the market.

    Thank you for your time and thoughts