Dr. Goodman’s article is a fantastic foray into the dark history organized medicine, culminating with a brutally honest assessment of the cartel that resulted. He gives a great preview of the good stuff in Greg Scandlen’s new book, Myth Busters: Why Health Reform Always Goes Awry, summarizing the oft-repeated myths we hear about healthcare economics thrown around like dogma.
A big part of the problem, as Cato’s Tanner pointed out earlier this year is that “Americans want widely contradictory things from health-care reform. They want the highest-quality care for everyone, with no wait, from the doctor of their choice. And they want it as cheap as possible, preferably for free.” Promising, as Sanders and Warren do, to give everybody high-quality health care without regard for ability to pay will always find an enthusiastic audience. But delivering on that promise is likely to give us not the illusion of Medicare for All, but rather its awful, unsustainable reality.
“While 55 percent of Americans say they want a single-payer/Medicaid-for-all plan, those in favor tend to change their minds when they hear that it means giving the government more control over health care, or that Americans would have to pay more in taxes.
That tracks with other polling on the issue. A May poll from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found support for single-payer state healthcare at 65 percent statewide, but that number dropped to 42 percent when respondents were told at least $50 billion in new taxes would be required to pay for it. That’s a pretty optimistic view of the taxes that would be required to pay for single-payer in California; the actual cost would be well over $100 billion annually.
Are you sure you want government-run health care? Many Americans don’t seem to understand the question. But once they do, the answer is “no.” “
Is this a good deal? If you are a high-income individual with a lot more than $10,000 in the bank, this product may not be for you. But if you tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck and have trouble saving for medical expenses, insuring against your deductible may make more sense than trying to fund it with a savings account.
Health Matching Services is a very innovative firm, but it has to struggle with tax laws and regulatory regimes that look like they were designed with no thought at all. And of course, the ridiculously high deductibles offered by primary insurers are the perverse result of Obamacare.
In a rational world, the tax law would provide a level playing field for premium payments and deposits to medical savings accounts. Competition in a secondary insurance market would provide consumers with many choices. For example, some might prefer to self-insure for the first $3,000 and buy the kind of secondary insurance described above for the remaining $7,000 gap.
Who knows? But for the perverse incentives of Obamacare and other insurance regulations, primary insurers might offer these choices. A secondary market for health insurance might not even be necessary.
“Every health-care system in the world rations care in some way, either through bureaucratic fiat (Scandinavia, the U.K.), waiting lists (Canada), or price (that’s us). One can argue about which of these rationing mechanisms is fairest or most efficient, but let’s not pretend that it won’t occur.”
I’m all about repeal. But let’s not stop with Obamacare. Let’s move on to many disastrous legislative interventions brought to us from the other side of the aisle. How about Medicare Part D, brought to us by a GOP-led executive? Why didn’t the GOP change the tax code to end the discrimination against individual purchases of health insurance during the time they had all the power? Hint: see paragraph one of this blog. This tax reform isn’t likely as the shift away from employer-purchased plans will gut the scam of PPO repricing, a devastating blow to the big insurance companies.
“Only a few years ago, the party was united behind three reforms that are consistent with individual empowerment and limited government: (1) a universal health refund that transfers all government tax and spending subsidies to ordinary citizens each year with no strings attached other than the requirement that it be used for health care, (2) a flexible Health Savings Account that allows people to manage some of their own health care dollars and (3) pre-existing condition protection for people who lose their insurance because of government policies.
For well over a decade House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) was a steadfast supporter of all three ideas, including replacing tax and spending subsidies for health care and health insurance with a universal tax credit. John McCain ran on these ideas in the 2008 election. The legislative embodiment of McCain’s plan was the Patients Choice Act, which Ryan cosponsored in 2009 along with Devin Nunes (R– CA) in the House and Tom Coburn (R–OK) and Richard Burr (R–NC) in the Senate.”
“The American Health Care Act (AHCA), proposed by the House leadership, was not about health care. It was about taxes. Over and over, Ryan said he needed to do health reform before tax reform. In particular, he said he needed to reduce Obamacare taxes by $1 trillion and to reduce spending by more than $1 trillion.As noted, a tax cut tied to health care is part of good health reform. But the Ryan tax cut wasn’t tied to health care. It consisted of repealing the very revenues that were funding Obamacare. (See below.) Since the tax cut took money out of the system, the spending cuts paired with it also removed money from the system.”
Imagine if you had “grocery insurance.” You’d buy expensive foods; supermarkets would never have sales. Everyone would spend more.
Insurance coverage — third-party payment — is revered by the media and socialists (redundant?) but is a terrible way to pay for things.
Today, 7 in 8 health care dollars are paid by Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance companies. Because there’s no real health care market, costs rose 467 percent over the last three decades.
By contrast, prices fell in the few medical areas not covered by insurance, like plastic surgery and LASIK eye care. Patients shop around, forcing health providers to compete.
The National Center for Policy Analysis found that from 1999 to 2011 the price of traditional LASIK eye surgery dropped from over $2,100 to about $1,700.
Source: Free Market Care – John Stossel