Paul Campos: Health care
Yet he misses the obvious: government meddling is the fundamental source of those ills. His proposal for more government-controlled medicine—for socialized medicine—would be a disaster for medical providers and patients alike.
Already, government bureaucrats set prices by arbitrary fiat via the Medicare system, then overwhelm doctors with paperwork and regulations.
Already, consumers are encouraged to pursue medical care without regard for cost, thanks to tax laws encouraging employers to provide medical insurance for even routine expenses. Already, taxpayers are burdened with the cost of ever-growing medical entitlement programs. Already, FDA regulations drive up the cost of life-saving drugs and prevent doctors from prescribing drugs known to be safe. The result of that government meddling is an expensive bureaucratic labyrinth that prevents healthcare providers—doctors, nurses, drug companies, hospitals, clinics—from providing the best medical care for the patient’s dollar.
The solution to these problems is not more paternalistic government regulations, bureaucracy, and entitlements. It is to allow—and require—people to take personal responsibility for their own health by separating medicine and state.
This letter has not been edited.
When I immigrated to the U.S. from Canada ten years ago, I was struck by the dishonesty of socialized medicine advocates in this country, who sang the praises of the Canadian socialist health care system while carefully avoiding the news stories in Canadian newspapers, easily available on the Internet, of that system's decay and erosion.
My advice to Americans: we in Canada have already done the experiment for you, and the results are in: the inherent moral and practical flaw, in any socialized system, is that it is socialized! It cannot be made to work -- not if quality health care is your concern.
Posted by Jim May on February 7, 2007 04:28 PMThe story I like to repeat is one that was told to me by a Canadian: If you need surgery, you get in line. The line moves forward as the people in front of you die.
Posted by Wayne Grantham on February 8, 2007 08:40 AMFor some unknown reason there is a common presumption that yet another government action or regulation will fix problems that the previous string of government actions screwed up. The assumption that free men = BAD, government = GOOD is totally backwards.
I don't *want* to model the U.S. after Europe. I don't want to be coddled and cared for in exchange for not having the freedom to spend my money as I see fit, and at the cost of basically enslaving doctors and forcing them to do government bidding. What we need instead is to free up health care providers, not restrict them even more. This stifles freedom for all, impedes independent thought and action, and will result in a lesser health care system.
If anyone wants to help those in need of medical care, they are free to do so with their own money. But as far as government funding and regulation is concerned, any goal that individuals won't support of their own free will is not worth pursuing.
Posted by Jeff Montgomery on February 8, 2007 11:52 PMInstead of passing more regulations and rules to allegedly "fix" the health care, Colorado's legislators should consider how existing laws have decimated it.
For example, The Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI.org) estimates that "mandated benefits currently increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to more than 50%." In October of 2006 The Council rated all 50 states on how well their insurance legislation either aids consumers by promoting competitive health insurance markets, or hurts consumers by crippling the market process and hence limiting affordable health insurance options. Colorado received 60 out of 100, which denotes a "functioning" market, but one that needs improvement. One of these areas concerns mandated benefits.
In his study, Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax (available at cato.org), Chris Conover of Duke University estimates that health care industry mandates costs each household $1500 - with dubious benefits - and is responsible for one-sixth of the daily uninsured.
The National Center for Policy Analysis summarizes how and why health care costs are rising. (Google "Update 2006: Why Are Health Costs Rising?") Between 1992 and 2005, medical service prices increased by 77% while the Consumer Price Index rose only 39%. The cost of cosmetic surgery, an uninsured medical procedure, increased only 22% despite booming demand.
Regarding Canada, the New York Times quotes Dr. Brian Day, President of the Canadian Medical Association: "This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years." (Canada's Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters, Feb 28, 2006)
In 2003 The NY Times also quoted the CMA President at the time: ""Physicians across Canada are in an advanced stage of burnout due to work conditions," said Dr. Sunil V. Patel, president of the Canadian Medical Association, who attributed much of the problem to technological shortages and the powerlessness doctors feel when patients complain about long waits for treatment. "That burnout causes them to retire early or pull away from certain kinds of work or simply leave." (Google "Canadian Doctors Eyeing United States" site:ncpa.org)
The Pacific Research Institute recently released a report (available on-line) titled "What States Can Do To Reform Health Care: A Free-Market Primer." I haven't looked at this yet, but I'm sure it has some quality policy recommendations.
Posted by Brian T. Schwartz on February 9, 2007 12:09 AMAn earlier comment reads;
"The story I like to repeat is one that was told to me by a Canadian: If you need surgery, you get in line. The line moves forward as the people in front of you die."
Funny, my canadian Xpat pal told me that line moves toward Detroit (from Windsor).
My favorite quote from a canadian was:
Peter: "I wish we could vote in your election."
Me: "Why?"
Peter: "If you get socialized medicaine too, we Canadians are going to have to go all of the way to Mexico to see a doctor!"
Diana Hsieh clearly identifies the fundamental problem with this issue in her letter: people need to question the premise that government should be involved in health care at all. There is no free lunch, and the same people who willngly pay "high" prices for less essential services have blinders on when it comes to those who can save their lives.
I hope this fact can be realized before it is too late.
Posted by Hannah Krening on February 10, 2007 09:01 AM