The Unites States has the world's most effective healthcare system, and we pay more for it. Democrats refuse to recognize this and cite our slightly lower life expectancy, but they are absolutely wrong.
A 2006 University of Iowa study found America has the world's highest life expectancy when normalized for rates of fatal car accidents and deaths by violent crime - things on which healthcare has no effect. Switzerland and Norway rank second and third. Cancer fatality rates are about two times higher in the UK than in the US. In Canada, rationing puts patients on long waiting lists for care: 4 months to see a specialist, 2.5 months for an MRI, 8 months for a neurosurgeon, and 9 months for an orthopedic surgeon. In the US, these services are available in a matter of days. Americans choose to spend more on healthcare for a simple reason: we don't like dying.
Democrats' criticism of “for-profit” healthcare appeals to our emotions, but it is deceptive and devoid of fact. Insurance company profits account for only $5 in Americans' monthly premiums. Yahoo! Finance shows the health insurance industry ranks 86th with a profit margin of only 3.3%. Democrats claim the government is more efficient than the private sector, and cite a lower “percent” administrative cost in Medicare than in private insurance.
The relevant comparison is cost per person covered. According to U.S. government data, in 2000 the monthly administrative cost to insure someone through Medicare was $32 versus $21 for the private sector. In 2005 Medicare cost was $42 per person versus $38 for private insurance. Even if Obama's “health insurance reform” could magically force government and private insurance to operate at 100% efficiency, it would save Americans only $40 per month. That's hardly reform, it's a joke.
Real reform must include tort reform. The Massachusetts Medical Society found that 25% of medical procedures ($200 billion worth) are unnecessary and medically unjustified, performed only to protect doctors from frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Doctors spend $100,000-$300,000 on malpractice insurance, the cost of which is passed on to consumers. We need a “loser pays” system to discourage frivolous lawsuits and reform of the legal standard of malpractice. There is no tort reform in Obamacare.
Reform must increase competition in the insurance industry. There are over 1000 health insurance companies in the US, but due to state regulations only about 20 operate in each state. Democrats claim a single “government option” is necessary to increase competition. Republicans propose allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, which would increase the number of competitors in each state by 980. The supposed “competition” in Obamacare is a joke.
Reform must recognize that real health insurance does not exist in America. Rather, we have health payment plans. Just as car insurance does not cover regular oil changes, health insurance should not cover regular doctors visits and exams. In these every-day services insurance is a middleman, adding overhead and then rolling the cost into our monthly premiums. Obamacare makes coverage of every-day services mandatory, and makes real health insurance illegal.
Reform must include an incentive for consumers to make decisions based on cost. There is no price competition between healthcare providers because, although prices vary wildly between one provider and the next, consumers don't even look at their bills when insurance is paying. The solution is an expansion of health savings accounts, which reward consumers for finding the best quality care at the lowest price. Obamacare makes Health Savings Accounts illegal (HR3200 pp. 26-30, Sec122).
The best way to provide healthcare to those in need is not through the nightmarish bureaucracy of a taxpayer-funded “government option”, but through need-based vouchers and a government insurance company funded solely by charging premiums. Vouchers would be in the amount of the government company premium, and recipients would have the choice to enroll in the government plan or a private plan, making up the difference if the private plan is more expensive, or keeping the difference if it is cheaper. This would provide price competition and healthcare for all Americans at a far lower cost, in dollars and in freedom, than Obamacare.
23 comments
Second, it's difficult to talk about averages or even medians in the United States. Because the variance of care within the population is so large. Yes, there are many who receive excellent health care and live to be quite elderly. And then are those in less fortunate sub-categories -- African Americans, native americans, Hispanics -- who have life expectancies that rival people in third world countries. So average and medians do not really tell us very much about our population. We need to look at the standard deviations -- the variances. Because that is where the problem is. that is where it has always been. that is where it will always be without health care reform.