Shea-Porter Signs The Polis/Pingree Letter

Now it is 8 Senators (0.00 / 0)

The first four:  Bennet, Gillibrand, Merkley & Brown.
Now onboard: Franken, Kerry, Leahy & Whitehouse.

Plus, 119 House members.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 19:59:15 PM CST

Neither a "public option", nor the status quo (0.00 / 1)

Or, here's a radical idea that would never fly in Washington: we could let people be free to make their own decisions about their own lives, finances, and health. Instead of legally requiring emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes through the door, for example, let them decide who to treat. Each of us could choose to subscribe to somewhat more expensive insurers, who promise to help cover the truly needy as well, or we could choose an inexpensive provider who does not, and use the savings to help fund charitable hospitals and hospital wings, or contribute to research and patient sponsorships.

Probably the greatest reason for the spiraling health care costs today is the lack of a price signal for consumers. It used to be that people held only catastrophic health insurance, and paid for smaller procedures and check-ups out of pocket. This motivated consumers to find inexpensive providers and alternate procedures, and so kept costs down -- doctors had to actually compete on price and quality. Now, businesses are required to provide health plans (not insurance), which removes most if not all of these price signals, so people have no incentive to refrain from wasting hundreds of dollars worth of a doctor's time to treat a head cold. Businesses could and should stop being required to provide this coverage -- simply give employees the extra money, and allow them to choose the best option for them.

Regulations also add a huge amount of expense. The average cost to get a single new drug approved is now almost a billion dollars, and it takes years. Many of these drugs do not actually make it to market, and so the cost of failed drugs is added to the ones that do. In addition, large corporations often work with congress and states to create regulations which will provide them with competitive advantages, and raise the bar to entry. These regulations should be reduced and eliminated. If a person wants to use a drug still in development, that is their decision -- I do not own their body. Or, if a person wishes to have a particular procedure provided by a capable nurse, for example, instead of an MD, that is their decision.

There is no reason why costs have to increase year after year. Other technologically intense industries, such as computing, increase in quality and decrease in price every year. The same is true of laser eye surgery, one of the few areas in medicine still relatively free. I have heard doctors reminisce about working at church clinics and the like for $3 an hour, and no one was turned away. These church clinics have vanished for a reason -- they cannot afford the government mandated equipment or to meet building regulations, nor can they afford armies of lawyers, or secretaries to deal with paperwork, insurance claims, proof of compliance with health and labor regulations, etc.

http://www.oftwominds.com/phot...
http://www.oftwominds.com/phot...

The links above are to a 1952 brochure from the Santa Monica hospital -- from before the days when heath care was buried in red tape, regulations, corporatist favoritism, and mandatory health plans. Even taking inflation into account, these prices are far below anything we see today. If one really wants to help the poor, they should work to restore free choice and competition, so we start seeing flyers like this one again.

We are generous people, and we need to help the poor. I certainly believe I have an obligation to do so. But, when instead of reaching into my own pocket to fund what I consider to be worthy causes, I reach into your pocket, I have crossed an important line

I am sure that if we really had health freedom, there would be many companies who would bundle preventative care with health insurance, for example. If this as actually more efficient, as some suggest, these plans will actually be less expensive as well as superior, and so will be preferred by nearly everyone. The solution, however, is not to have one ivy league or washington guru, or group of gurus, deciding how everyone will live their lives, and forcing these decisions upon them by threat of jail. Not only is this a gross violation of individual rights, but history has shown that this kind of top down decision making leads to favoritism, corruption, waste, and failure. It is no coincidence that the most heavily regulated and government-involved industries in the country -- financials, health, and education, are also the industries which most severely under perform, and government programs, which are immune to competition, are rife with corruption and waste.

Clinics should provide what they choose to provide, and people should patronize the clinics they choose to patronize.

As Bastiat put it in "The Law", "... what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties - liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire - learned from the teachings of antiquity - that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy."

In short, we may believe we know better than other people, and would do a better job of running their lives and finances than they do, but we must all recognize that we do not have a moral right to threaten violence against peaceful people to extract their money or to force our choices and priorities upon them. I do not think there exists a self consistent set of ethical principles which supports such actions. People are not tools to be used by us to accomplish a purpose. As long as they do not harm others, they have a right to make their own choices.

Not that you'll hear any of this from either the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington -- they're pretty much all in the back pockets of the corporations, bankers, and lobbyists.

Anyhow, thanks for listening :)

---

by: tremendoustie @ Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 22:41:48 PM CST

A new and different approach (0.00 / 0)

The Frisbee Hospital has established a walk-in care center in Barrington.  This is a private sector attempt to lower the cost of health care.  Emergency rooms are too often used as clinics by people who do not have a primary care physician.  Unfortunately many of these people do need medical attention, but not at the critical level of care the ER provides.  I think this is worth a look.

http://www.frisbiehospital.com...

---

by: Jim_NH @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:19:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

That's just the kind of thing we need more of -- people helping other people, without mountains of bureaucracy, and without coercion. Unfortunately, these days, anything medical related is buried under red tape, and ponderous regulations.

Let's get rid of 'em! We need more Frisbee Hospitals all over the place, but the only way that's going to happen is if it can be done affordably. The only thing that should be illegal is harming other people or their property.

---

by: tremendoustie @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 17:24:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]