Healthcare
Affordable access to quality healthcare for all Americans should be a political priority. That said, there’s quite a bit of dispute on how to get there.
Obama’s health care agenda has so far been straightforwardly liberal–drastically expand coverage through increased government spending. This will be paid for by soaking the rich and technocratic cost-cutting moves.
But the rich, as you may have noticed, are a dwindling breed. It’s naive to suppose that the enormous entitlements that the Democrats are racking up only require sacrifices from a small, evil, few. This discrepancy between spending and taxing is currently being made up by deficit spending on an order of magnitude that would make even Reagan blanch.
Well, there are other ways to cut costs. Covering more people lowers the average cost per person, and then there are improvements in electronic billing and preventative care. While the last two are certainly good, there’s really no clear evidence that they can really lower the cost of care–in some cases, they may even raise it. As for expanding coverage–we’re doing that in Massachussets. And the result has been spiraling costs that are devastating the state’s budget.
Many European countries have enviable healthcare platforms. But the path of American care is more likely to follow the trend set in MA–more coverage, higher costs. Now, spending more money for better treatments is great, and covering the uninsured is a desirable goal. But much of this spending is for unnecessary treatments, and is being added to already unsustainable government finances. This will mean massive taxes in the future or government-rationed care.
There’s another way out of this mess–massive deregulation of the industry to allow the cost-cutting forces of competitive markets hold. Lousiana Governor Jindal’s plan to institute a medical homes system lowers costs while improving consumer choice and qualitiy of care. The idea is that you give physicians incentives to treat patients well, while allowing coverage plans to compete on the basis of improved quality of care and less wasteful spending–not by denying sick people treatment.
Mitch Daniels’ signature health plan covers Indiana citizens while containing costs. Under a Health Account System, consumers are price-conscious for small treatments–pressuring doctors to lower costs, as they’ve done in dramatically lowering the cost of Lasik surgery. But coverage is there for major health problems. The plan also accounts for holistic-health services like screenings, preventative care, and anti-smoking messages.
Improving insurance coverage, while promoting health, improving choice, and cutting costs? That’s change I can believe in.
[...] the line for health care reform, but even these understate the true cost, while the experience of Massachussets suggests that offering health reform by increasing coverage will continue unsustainable cost [...]