« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Repeal ObamaCare. Then, Let’s Do Something Really Radical…Try Freedom.

Government is (and always has been) the problem, not the solution.

ObamaCare. No, it’s not dead. Not even close. Yet, with Monday’s ruling that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, there is some hope on the horizon that the foray into enslaving America in a government-dictated insurance scheme may yet be repealed, outlawed, or just thrown into the ash heap of really, really bad ideas.

There is so much wrong with ObamaCare that it could fill an entire post (and then some), but that is not the reason for this post.

The reason for this post is very simple: First, we need to recognize that government is the problem with America’s health care costs, not the solution. Second, we need to start coming up with some fresh and bold ideas in the eventuality that we can slay the beast of government-run healthcare once and for all. Even if ObamaCare is repealed in House, unless there are 67 senators who can be dragged away from the altar of closed-market health care to override a presidential veto, 2013 is the earliest ObamaCare can be aborted—but then what?

As a small business owner who just got hit with a $3600 insurance premium hike for 2011 and who will be paying (at a minimum$177,500 over the next ten years just for the “privilege” of having one family covered with insurance, you can be assured that my points are more than mere rhetorical ones. If I had my druthers, I would have a catastrophic-only plan that covers emergencies and life-threatening illnesses, and pay the rest out of pocket. I’d probably save well over $125,000 in the next ten years with a plan like that—if one existed.

The problem is, a plan like that doesn’t exist…can’t exist. Why? The government bureaucrats won’t allow it. In our state, there are, by law (or regulation), only three types of insurance, provided by three insurers. It is a closed market scheme. In addition, let’s just say (for the sake of discussion) that a plan like that did exist in the next state over and I wanted to purchase it. I couldn’t do that either—because the government bureaucrats have created an artificial wall that won’t allow insurance to be bought across state lines. You see, in this simple and real small-business example, already government is the problem—and we’re paying the price.

Last year, when Nancy Pelosi went on her lunatic rant about insurance carriers being “immoral”, it was the epitome of hypocrisy—sort of like the Devil calling demons evil for doing what their master taught them to do. [Too harsh?...What is it then, if not evil, for those who purposely unleash a disease to also claim to be the cure?] People who claim that insurance companies have monopolies don’t realize that it is Congress that created the monopolies to begin with. That is why Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the rest of their ilk, have been so disingenuous in shoving ObamaCare up America’s rectum.

Like a healthy person going for a checkup, and going home with herpes, America has been gamed, lied to, and tricked into believing that health care is incompatible with a free market—lied to by the very people who claim to have the cure. Democrats and their union coaches have become nothing more (or better) than snake oil salesmen.

Yes, the cost of health care has risen exponentially for years. Health care costs have destroyed incomes, cost American jobs, caused strikes, and bankrupted companies. But it’s not due to a lack of government, it’s because of too much government.  It hasn’t been the fault of the free market, as the socialist union bosses and the Marxist Democrats claim, it has been because it has not been a free market. If America wants to blame anyone, we should blame those who have been controlling and gaming the system—the bureaucrats and their union bosses—who now claim that more bureaucracy is the cure.

So, before we continue talking about “how government should fix health care,” perhaps it’s time we recognize how government caused it to be broken in the first place. Let’s begin looking at the true reason why the cost structure has been so blown out of alignment. And, then, perhaps more will understand why we need to tell government to get out of the way—now!

Last year, as the heated rhetoric of the health care debate was raging all across America, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that provided some market-based alternatives to the monstrous big-government scheme that has become ObamaCare. While Mackey’s piece was brief, the Left’s reaction to it was extreme.

Immediately, the attack dogs from the unions launched a nationwide boycott of Whole Foods, Mackey was attacked personally, and the Left screamed hysterically. To see the Left’s ridiculous reaction indicated that they felt threatened by Mackey’s ideas—which meant they were probably pretty good ideas. While you can read the entire Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare here [and it is worth reading in its entirety], below is the main thrust of Mackey’s ideas:

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees’ Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor’s visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

While there are likely other ideas that are out there, Mackey’s ideas serve as a good starting point for debate and discussion as to what we will “replace” ObamaCare with, if we can ever get to that point. However, if we are not serious about coming up with solutions that truly reflect a market-based system, as opposed to a government run bureaucracy, there is no point in trying to repeal ObamaCare. If politicians on the Right think they can replace big bureaucracy with little bureaucracy, it will fix nothing, we’ll be right back where we were two years ago, and we’re wasting our time.

In healthcare, as in all other areas of life, we can either choose freedom and a free market, or we can choose to be our brother’s’ keeper—and he our keeper—but you can’t have both. Freedom is incompatible with a government bureaucracy making life and death decisions. And, in healthcare, we can’t just be against ObamaCare, and not be for something to replace it. The question is, can we take the steps to beat the bureaucrats back?  And, if so, then what?

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • ctw19

    we have a severe doctor shortage. we need more medical schools… its plainly obvious, if you want to lower costs, you must increase supply.

    • actuarius

      the primary problem. It is a shortage of residencies, which are funded by, guess who? The federal government via Medicare. And, since 1997, there has been an active program to minimize funding new residencies.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html

    • lineholder

      that the cost of medical school has risen so high, reimbursement rates to primary care doctors run so low, and a lot of medical school students are willing to spend years of their career making do with a heavy burden of debt, so they opt out to become specialists rather than primary care physicians.

      I really dread it when the involuntary public health corp draft kicks in. The government will be able to “deem” a medical emergency, moviing health care personnel around the country to work wherever they choose.

      Does anyone know if this applies to nurses as well?

      • lineholder
  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

    The fundamental problem with health care in America is that a third party pays. Whether it’s the government or an insurance company, having deep pockets involved distorts each health care transaction.

    For instance, payers try to set rules about what is a medically necessary covered problem and what is not. But everyone knows doctors “code creatively”, by some definition of creativity, to minimize what the patient has to pay while maximizing what the doc gets paid.

    And even were that not the case, patients with insurance have already paid for the convenience of showing up at a doctor’s office, and will tend to do so whether they’re sick or not. They’re more likely to accept expensive tests, as well. The same thing goes for those covered by “free” government programs, who lack even the incentive of keeping their premiums low. People who pay for something simply use less of it.

    Far from being made mandatory, it would make for a better system if health insurance were outlawed. I’m not advocating that, because people should be free to amortize the cost of health care if they believe it makes sense for their situation. But given the choice between mandatory insurance and none, I would choose none.

    The government mandates for the types of procedures that must be covered are examples of the nanny state not trusting people to make their own decisions. There hasn’t been anyone sitting in the legislators’ offices demanding to be able to make their own choices, though. I think the tea party movement is a move in that direction.

    As I said, great post.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Like the last two+ years.

      But, to date, I haven’t seen any broad solutions and someone better start throwing some stuff out there.

      Hopefully, this is a conversation starter.

      • lineholder

        that is fighting for everything they are worth to hold on to that “freedom” you are talking about. It is a private, medium-sized, for-profit, totally autonomous health care organization and they want to go on being totally autonomous. The fact that they are still totally autonomous speaks volumes in these days where hospitals of this size are being bought out like milk-and-bread in the wake of a southern snowstorm.

        I had considered putting up a diary about some of the things that I’ve learned through this visit, so maybe I’ll do that instead of getting into a detailed response now.

    • runner12

      While I agree that some doctors are dishonest out there, if they begin to code too” creatively” it is called fraud and they lose their license.
      Also, most responsible doctors do not order expensive testing because they want more money. Often they feel compelled to provide every test available because they are afraid of being sued if they do not.
      The solutions discussed by Mr. Mackey are a great starting point. The less government is involved in health care decisions, the better it is for both health care professionals and patients.

      • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

        To say that the doctors who use a more liberal interpretation of the insurance company codes are being “dishonest” is further than I would go. Given the incredible complexity of health care, the error is in trying to pin them down.

        To attract patients, or to avoid driving them away, doctors have to respond to market pressure, which means if there is a way to make something appear cheap or free to the customer, they will do it.

        It’s the system itself that is wrong.

        And I didn’t mean to imply that doctors order tests for any other reason than some combination of real diagnostics and CYA, neither of which pads their bottom line.

        • runner12

          Overall I agree with everything you said.

        • edintexas

          Is it reasonable to believe you:
          1. Are not a physician?
          2. Are not involved in billing for medical practices?
          3. Have not conducted criminal or civil investigations of billing fraud?
          4. Are not a prosecutor who has prosecuted medical fraud cases?

          I spent more than a couple of decades conducting criminal investigations of “white collar crime”, including many False Claims cases. While I can say that over the years people became less likely to “drop a dime” on fraud and abusive billing practices (those who were adults during the Great Depression and WW II would do so in a heartbeat), there usually is someone who gets ticked off, particularly with government programs for which they pay involved (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid not very often). Aggressive use of computer profiling will also eventually catch the more egregious billing problems.

          If there is sufficient money involved (and with medical costs that isn’t too difficult if there is much fraudulent billing), a prosecutor (either a state AG’s office or US Attorney’s office) will take a case to trial. So simply losing a license to practice isn’t the worst penalty a physician can suffer, some do time. The cases are often not simple to prove, but docs can be (and have been) convicted and sent to prison. The lucky ones only get zapped with a Civil Fraud case, or (if really lucky and caught early with a fairly low dollar amount and not too egregious problems) pay back the overpayment.

          • edintexas

            I would “go so far” as to call creative billing dishonest, and even criminal fraud where intent can be proven. Why people don’t think that doctor/business/entity is not stealing, but only “doing them a favor”, is beyond me. All the people who pay into the insurance company are the victims in the higher premiums they have to pay to cover the “creative billing”. And all the taxpayers are the victims when government programs are involved.

          • wonkish1

            That national ehealth records is probably the best way to combat medicare and medicaid fraud?

          • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

            The best way to fight Medicare/caid fraud is to restructure those programs as high-deductible voucher systems. Put patients in charge of the first dollar, and you’ll see them spend it a lot better than HHS would.

          • fpete13527
          • wonkish1

            If lets say that takes some time implement, and ehealth records could be done tomorrow you wouldn’t go for it.

            There are some clear benefits for that besides fraud. There is also the convenience of not having to fill out forms every time you get into a hospital, and in the event your unconscious doctors know what you’re allergic to, your medical history, etc. so that they are less likely to make a mistake.

          • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

            No, I’m not a lawyer or doctor. I’m better than either, for I am a logician. :-) . More to the point, I’ve been a patient, and have discussed these billing issues with the doctors and health professionals for whom I am a customer.

            As a lawyer you see only the worst cases. But for every true abuse you see, there are many more cases in which the doctor has a real, legitimate choice between two equally plausible codes, only one of which the patient can afford. Or perhaps there is little difference in cost, but one code better meets some administrative goal of the practice or hospital.

            For instance, is a doctor visit a repeat visit on the same problem that didn’t get fixed before, or was the patient cured and now this is a recurrence? Perhaps the patient can tell, perhaps not.

            And there are cases in which coding a more expensive option would be clearly wrong. For instance, it would be wrong to say that a black eye called for facial reconstructive surgery, or to say that some procedure was performed that was not performed.

            Between the nearly identical codings and the outright fraudulent codings there is a spectrum of choices which cannot be called fraud or lying, but might raise an eyebrow.

            But look beyond the mechanics of the system, and at why the system operates as it does in the first place. Why have built-in incentives for the doctor to cheat, and rely on regulation and ethics to control conduct? Instead, the system should build in incentives for honesty, as in the free market. Cheat a patient, lose ten from word of mouth.

            The problem is not creative coding, it’s third-party payer.

    • oltex2

      2 things that can really reduce the cost of health care are:
      1. The freedom of speech in science act. This will allow the disimination of information about true health breakthrus without FDA making, for example, cherries, as unregistered drugs.

      2. The freedom of choice in medical treatment act. this will allow the free choice of some of the 400 protocols known to cure cancer. the choice of products and treatments like what is now required to be underground treatments that will cure malaria in 8 hours for less than $10.00, or the complete cure for aids in less than 21 days for less than $20.00
      These choices are really available to anyone who cares enough to do the research, and then go under the radar to get the treatment.

      • JSobieski

        Freedom is the answer, and the FDA is a bureaucracy, but your factual assumptions are incorrect.

        The FDA does not regulate scientific publications or online blogs.

        If there was a reputable cure for cancer, we would have heard about it.

        There is research out there about all sorts of conspiracies.

    • actuarius

      in America is that third parties pay for benefit-rich first dollar policies. The biggest group is employer-paid group insurance, followed by government-paid insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, etc.). No one in these groups has any incentive to reduce the cost of health care.

      There is nothing like a high deductible ($5,000 to $10,000) to focus the patient’s attention on day to day costs and getting a good deal.

      Americans are spoiled. As a group we whine about $25 co-pays for an office visit to a doctor. A cost is not efficient to insure unless it satisfies two criteria: infrequency and unaffordability. If you have the same costs every year or if they are ones that you can afford, they shouldn’t be insured. Without these two criteria you are just reimbursing. You are just trading dollars and paying the insurance company administrative costs and profits.

      The only way to reduce costs and maintain freedom is to have health care funding mechanisms where the patient/doctor/patient’s family is responsible for and in control of the costs (at least until the costs are large enough to be insurance instead of reimbursement). Let them make the trade-off between the costs and the benefits, and pay the costs of their decisions. Costs will plummet.

      A society with no insurance is not an option. Forget it. There really will be a pandemic of bankruptcies caused by high health care costs.

      • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

        I have no desire to outlaw insurance. As I said, people should be able to amortize their health costs.

        I guess what I mean is that we shouldn’t be pushing insurance as an unmitigated good, when it clearly has negative side effects.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    1. tort reform to bring down costs
    2. interstate health insurance markets to bring down costs

    Both are generally de-regulation so that is good.

    • nessa

      The real question is, does the GOP have a plan? It seems to me it would be more popular, that is it might entice some of the independents and dem fence sitters to our side if we had a plan beyond Repeal. Maybe the Freshmen can devise something and begin to publicize it. We could start to become “The Party of NO To Stupid Socialist Ideas.”

      • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

        I suspect they don’t, so we might as well help them craft it now…

        ;)

        • actuarius

          making recommendations that will work requires a clear set of principles, complete analysis and articulation of the issues that need addressed, and recommendations that can be proved to be effective at addressing the issues and consistent with the principles. All the while getting buy-in from those participating.

          I’ve tried to participate in on-line sessions to do just that. Most have the issue that is not a problem at Redstate: bomb-throwing progressives intent on disrupting the process. But as dibilitating is the lack of process and discipline. It usually devolves into a bunch of brain-storming and critiques.

          I wish you luck, however. And am willing to participate in a thoughtful process.

          Actuarius,
          Fellow, Society of Actuaries
          Retired
          Specialized in life and health insurance

    • actuarius

      Benefit-rich first dollar “insurance” policies wherein the premium is paid by third parties are the biggest contributors to high cost. I can’t prove it, but think about tens of millions of people making decisions to get medical services because the insurance pays (and they don’t pay for the insurance premium). Neither proposal addresses this cost driver.

      We still need to address those who are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions.

      Medicare and Medicaid costs are going up faster than any other segment (see first paragraph). Not addressed by either of your proposals.

      Yet the number of doctors refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients is growing. Ditto.

      Finally, your item two won’t end in less regulation but more. The fifty monkeys will be replaced with one huge gorilla. Think it will be more supportive of free marke?. Maybe, but there are big risks that it won’t.

    • eastbaylarry

      Does the Constitution address either of these? Aren’t these States issues that the Federal Government is barred from?

      Ok, maybe Interstate Insurance could be covered by the ‘Commerce Clause’, but what about tort reform?

      Don’t get me wrong here; I’m totally in favor of both, but what does the Constitution say?

      • actuarius

        the SOTUS ruled, in US v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the business of insurance is commerce if Congress says it is. In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson act, which allows states to regulate and tax insurers, allows insurers to share information, and provides some exemptions to federal anti-trust regulations (if the states do so).

        That law still stands, so the states are responsible for almost all aspects of regulating the business of insurance.

        • eastbaylarry

          This was my question: We can all see that insurance limited to one state is a block to free enterprise competition. Is there any way to remove this restriction?

          Also, I notice that other types of insurance don’t seem to have this limitation. The last two Auto Insurance policies I’ve had were through companies based on the east coast. What’s up with that?

          • wonkish1

            a provision that allows insurance policies bought in New Jersey(for example) from a state like Iowa(for example) to not be subject to New Jersey regulatory law and New Jersey Healthcare pork otherwise allowing interstate healthcare sales is mostly symbolic.

            The next problem is that if you do secure that, then health insurance will be regulated by the least regulatory state as all insurance companies move to that state(like credit card companies and South Dakota) that isn’t a problem. But the inevitable situation will be the complaints of states like New Jersey, Mass, Vermont, etc. that health insurance is completely unregulated and they will find an issue and make it regulated by the federal government. That could pose a longterm problem as I would rather have health insurance regulated by 50 states then 1 big federal body.

          • JSobieski

            Federal regulation of health insurance is actually the core problem of Obamacare given the desire to preclude consumer choices.

            So the benefit of selling across state lines becomes irrelevant—the federal rules will be the most oppressive, and they will be uniform across all states

          • wonkish1

            Actually most of federal regulation is the forcing of states to regulate in a certain way, but still most regulation will be derived from the states after this bill as it was before. Its just that the increase in federal regulation is very substantial.

            Bought your right it does appear that federal regulation of healthcare industry is increasing anyway so we might as well just do interstate health insurance to wipe out the bad state regulation piece of the pie. That is a good point, thanks for making it.

  • bobmontgomery

    ..is not insurance. But the same Republicans who opposed the individual mandate said they didn’t want to appear to be mean-spirited so they wanted pre-existing conditions covered, like the Democrats did.

    • actuarius

      Proof. Group policies cover pre-existing conditions. If you work for the group, the insurance premiums in which you participate include the cost of those with pre-existing conditions. Unless you have a spouse who works where the coverge is better, you are stuck paying it (granted, the employer typically pays the bulk).

      Which is the point. The only way anyone would pay for others’ pre-existing conditions is that if they had no other choice. If they had a choice, they would take it.

      I’m still against the individual mandate in ObamaCare.

      Guaranteeing the issue of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions does not work without some way of making sure that those without the conditions do not flee and those with the conditions do not wait till they incur costs to start paying premiums. Either one is a recipe for disaster. Republicans and others who support covering pre-existing conditions in isolation are fools.

      • bobmontgomery

        …may agree to pay high rates to secure promise from an insurance company to pay for treatment for a condition that existed prior to issuance of the contract, but that is not my layman’s understanding of insurance. If I went to an auto insurance company with a wrecked car, or a life insurance company as a ghost of my former self, I would probably be met with a shaking of the head. I am not an actuary, but I worked briefly for an insurance company and had group coverage. I developed disc problem that they refused to pay for because I had been to the ER with shoulder pain only a few months prior to coming on board but my diagnosis was less than six months into my employment. I felt wronged, but there was nothing I could do.

        • actuarius

          Individuals with pre-existing conditions can’t get individual insurance, generally, no matter what they are willing to pay. The reason that groups can is that the employer agrees to pay or collect the premiums for the insurance company that are sufficient to pay the costs over a large group of people.

          The reason you were denied coverage in a group situation is that your employer was looking for ways to reduce costs. Insurance companies are comfortable guaranteeing coverage for people in group situations because they are comfortable that individuals tend to make decisions about jobs for other reasons than solely to get health insurance, and they have the group over which to spread the costs..

          The problem is known as risk selection in insurance circles. Every insurance company who provides individual coverage is willing to cover those with pre-existing conditions by charging everyone the average cost including those conditions. The problem for them is competition. The other companies offer those without pre-existing conditions a cheaper rate. Then the average company is stuck with a higher percent of those with pre-existing conditions, hence higher costs. Soon they only have the high cost, and their premiums reflect that and are too high.

          My point is that mandating coverage does not disqualify it as insurance. It violates the principle of freedom that those on this blog cherish, so we have to find another way, but it still is insurance.

          • wonkish1

            High risk pools.

            They are much more efficient and do a lot less damage to healthcare in America and a lot less government intrusion than banning pre existing conditions(aka community rating).

          • actuarius

            I’m just being open to other innovative issues.

      • Menlo

        My understanding is that group policies can reject someone if the insurance company finds upon a claim for a new patient that he or she has had a recent medical visit AND lacked health insurance for some time (2 months I think).

  • rogershru2

    Hopefully the new congress will not stop at repealing obamacare, but will actually try to fix the problems with ideas like those above – ideas designed to increase freedom and choice.

  • runner12

    When the ruling came down declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional, I began to wonder if we were prepared with an alternative plan once successful in defeating it once and for all (that is after I did my happy dance that we struck a blow at this disaster of a bill). I know we have a long way to go, but it is not too early to be gathering ideas and forming a plan that will truly fix our health care system and make it truly a free-market enterprise. Mr. Mackey’s suggestions should be considered and hopefully most of them would be in the GOP alternative.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      Demos are going to be taunting every GOP candidate or incumbent, as soon as the election season begins with, so “what’s your plan?”

  • itrytobenice

    GREAT article. Thanks for posting it.

  • wonkish1

    –Voucherize Medicare, Medicaid, and VA healthcare
    –Convert state owned and operated high risk pools into state subsidized private pools where insurance companies bid for the lowest subsidy for a target price(close to current high risk pool prices).
    –Expand the authority of high risk pools to offer single ailment policies to individuals where people that have effectively had to sign an “exclusionary contract” excluding treatment of pre existing conditions can buy a policy from a high risk pool that covers only the pre existing health issue
    –The obvious tort reform and interstate health insurance
    –Provide deductibility for individuals paying for insurance out of pocket(currently only given to corporations) to ween people off of company provided healthcare and into individual healthcare
    –Cut out healthcare pork(yes there is such thing) and is a principal driver of increasing healthcare costs in blue states
    –Universal ehealth records to wipe out Medicaid and Medicare fraud
    –eproscribing to cut out proscription errors
    –Allowing outcome based payment for healthcare

    Other issues to tackle are unconscious healthcare consumption and patient mobility. Unconscious healthcare consumption is the issue of hospitals being able to run up large bills without a person being able to personally make decisions. Not a huge issue, but still one. Patient mobility has to do with the fact that once you are in the hospital a lot of times you aren’t allowed to move to another hospital and exercise choice until the hospital discharges you.

    But the big two issues still are:

    Skin in the game
    and
    Healthcare consumption without payment

    **Skin in the game is the fact that once your deductible is hit you pretty much have limitless demand of healthcare. Since someone else is paying for it, you don’t care about cost of anything. So you run up huge bills that drive up the cost for others. HSA’s have done some to help this and every day its getting better, but issues still persist
    —Increasing deductibles and co pays for state and federal employees
    —Like the awesome Singapore system we could make a certain % of income mandatory for HSA contributions(doubt that is very politically popular).
    —Give some form of incentive for companies to switch from low deductible HMO plans to higher deductible Major Medical Plans

    **Uncompensated Healthcare consumption. Anybody can come into a hospital without insurance and run up a bill and then not pay it. The cost can’t be soaked up by benefactors or the government so hospitals increase the cost of their services to push it onto insurance companies ultimately driving up insurance premiums
    —Mandatory insurance(now I don’t even support that)
    —Ending no insurance walk ins(good luck at getting people to go for that)
    —Self executing Medicaid vouchers(if someone doesn’t pick pick an insurance policy with their voucher than it self executes and picks one for them)
    —Segregating healthcare taking the charity and government side of things and transferring it to community health centers and giving them fixed budgets allowing hospitals to just service those that have insurance. The problem is still that emergencies still all have to go to the hospital because they can’t tell who does or doesn’t have insurance until after they stabilize them. And those community health centers would turn to crap pretty quickly where lefties would start demanding more funds.

  • smhart

    As an insurance agent I would just like to point out that the plan that is available at Whole Foods is also available to individuals. At least in the 8 states that I am licensed in. On an individual basis you may purchase plans with deductibles as high as $25,000.00. You may purchase HSA’s and you may also purchase plans that do not have any benefits until the deductible is met.
    Susan

  • atillathehun

    As a former xray tech in the middle 60′s for about 6years I learned that hospitals throughout the country were required to treat non emergency cases and that approximately 40% of all caes being dead beats.
    Two issues are obvious. The requirement to treat non emergency cases in the space for emergencies and dead beat cases.
    It is usually ann easy call to tell someone with a sore throat for a week to see a doctor of their choice or a fever for three days to get treated in a non emergency setting. It would appear that refusal of service should be reinstituted at the level that it woud be most effective.No system survives a 40% dead beat ratio.

    • Scope

      we know is rampant among those with no medical insurance. I worked with a young guy at one time that had no medical insurance. One of his teeth became infected, so he went to the emergency room to have it treated, because he said he didn’t have the money to see a dentist. At the emergency room he was given some prescriptions for the pain, and told to see an orthodontic surgeon. He still took valuable time away from true emergencies though. Funny thing was, he had the fanciest most expensive cell phone, with one of the most expensive monthly plans, and, he still lived with mom.

      • http://www.twitter.com/RS_yoyo yoyo

        Scope: Funny thing was, he had the fanciest most expensive cell phone, with one of the most expensive monthly plans, and, he still lived with mom.

        Dave Ramsey said once [and I am paraphrasing]:

        “We are witnessing the wuss-ification of America! If you have a 28 year old living on your couch or in your basement, you are creating a wuss and enabling his wuss-ness. Do you think you are ‘helping’ him? Whose fault is it that he has no job, no home of his own? WAKE UP!”

        It is like that show, ‘Down and Out’ (or something) on WE/Lifetime/Oxygen (whatever – my wife likes the stupid show). They are bankrupt, foreclosed on, cant make rent, he cannot find a job, yet each of the 5(?) kids have cell phones, cable, and they live in a huge rental in the best part of town….

        Crap like that kills me. Always will.

  • 2warabnvet

    It isn’t only health care, excessive government regulation is at the heart of so much that is wrong with our economy.

  • http://www.twitter.com/RS_yoyo yoyo

    If we were allowed to purchase individual accounts cheaply – like auto or homeowners/renters insurance and CARRY IT wherever we go – then we would never have a Pre-existing condition.

    ***I have had USAA Home/Auto/Life for years… I seem to remember moving (once or twice or a dozen times) while in the military and never being told I had to change. Heck, I have even changed employers and still kept USAA Home/Auto/Life. But, HEALTH insurance on the other hand… I have had Trident = horrible, Cigna = horrible, BCBS = horrible, and Tricare = EVIL at least twice each.***

    While I am rewarded by my home/auto insurance for having no claims, safe driver, multi-car, and bundled insurance et al with lower premiums and deductibles, I get no such reward for not visiting the ER or my Doc (for other than a yearly) for years. I pay the same, regardless. I guess my reward is the privilege of having their “coverage” forced on me in a “take it or leave it” fashion every year.

    Actually, scratch that. I pay MORE – for reasons that are unclear or vague – in both premiums and deductibles (in 2011, deductibles will be 30/50/300). How is THIS supposed to incentivize me (and my wife and THREE children – all under 7) to go for a checkup? What, each of my paychecks being docked by $400+ not enough to cover our one visit each year/six months for a checkup?

    And WHOSE bright idea was “OPEN ENROLLMENT” anyway? Who ever it was should be FORCED to choose – in November – what two items off of the “Dollar Menu” at McDonald’s (one for breakfast and another for lunch/dinner) he would like for he and his family to only eat for the next year – and then each time they want FOOD, they can only have what he chose at the cost (plus bureaucratic overhead), regardless of what changes in the menu occur, until next November. And he better hope that there is an “in-network provider” close by.

    Grrrr……

    Thanks for the post LRU.