Reading pages and pages on the proposed healthcare reform options is a mind-numbing task, and leaves one sorely in need of ten minutes with a Dr. Seuss book, simply for the pleasure one derives from reading a complete work with the capacity to understand it. However, taking what one can, it seems difficult not to come to the conclusion that a government run health care plan is far from the best way to solve the issue. Unlike other entitlements and Medicare/caid, this would essentially be putting the government in the middle of the free market, and while regulating the market is a governmental responsibility, active participation needs to be avoided.
Rather than rush to provide healthcare for all, the focus should be making current healthcare more affordable, and thus exponentially more attainable. Certainly, the regulation of torts and malpractice litigation is a beginning. The regulation can be either on 1. the amount that can be awarded in specific cases, or 2. a cap on the lawyers fees paid. An attorney might think twice about the string of endless appeals available and the excessive costs of week long expert witness testimony if the most he or she could be paid is $100,000 as opposed to the standard third of ten million. Additionally , there should be a penalty to the attorney that takes on a frivolous lawsuit from any client with a bruise. No matter how insane the accusation, the hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical providers are all forced to spend millions in legal fees defending cases that never go anywhere, simply because some ambulance chasing lawyer decided to take a shot at getting a settlement. Should a regulatory board decide it was a frivolous attempt, the attorney, not the client, would be fined. The number of these brought to bear would be drastically decreased.
Additionally, regulating the amount a company that has developed a new drug would be able to charge for it exchange for more time with the exclusive rights for that drug is another option. Currently, someone that develops a new cancer medication has 7 years (the actual time varies) to recoup all of its development expenses before every company on the planet starts duplicating it. Thus, that medication is $120 a bottle. If however, the 7 years became 14, the retail price could be cut in half. Granted, the option that currently exists in year 8 of the ten dollar knock-off would disappear, but the exorbitant cost of medication would be greatly reduced overall.
Regulation, not an additional healthcare plan, would go much further in bringing healthcare to all Americans. Like any necessity, healthcare should be covered under strict governmental controls. If a company wants to charge a million bucks for a new TV, so be it. But a million for a syringe, not so much. Regulate costs and lawsuit payouts, eliminate frivolous legal action, and the overall cost will be greatly reduced, and fast.
4 comments:
*clapping* I couldn't agree more. Obama has proposed measures to cut health care costs. It is not necessary for government to institute health care for all in order to enact these. I have been wondering why we can't cut costs, but leave the government options out.
Tort reform is an excellent point that I wish Obama took more seriously. People should be reimbursed for losses, but lawyers should not be getting filthy stinking rich for it.
A free market solution at first seems like the right way to go. Everything you proposed here are excellent ideas, and most of them seem to be incorporated into healthcare bill vesrion 0.5.
The problem is healthcare is a big business, and big business always always alwayssss finds a way to dick over the customer. They line their pockets, get filthy rich, and the bubble busts, and they continue to get rich as we continue to get poorer. With car insurance, dealing with rising premiums and difficult to claim accidents is one thing, but with health, I think living is a right, not a privilege. It is a privilege to own a car.
Top this off with the fact that The USA is not even on the top 10 list of healthiest countries, and you have to ask how good is our current option?
To use some sort of top ten list to rate the healthcare system of the U.S. is misleading. We have far better healthcare than most countries. The issue is coverage. Our fully insured population would be ranked in the top 3, the uninsured are severely impacting the average. Our best is better than their best, but our worst is worse than their worst. We are still the country the world travels to when they need superior, specialized care. Compared to a country offering socialized medicine, of course we will have a lower average healthcare.
Our best may be the best, but the average healthcare experience is not so good in this country at all. Same can be said for education - we have the BEST universities, but we get our butts handed to us primary and secondary education. Like education, healthcare in this country has been neglected for far too long, and all the reforms in the world will not stop big business from finding ways to make easy money. Thus if you have insurance, you may not even get the money you need to pay the bill!!
So maybe we do indeed have the best specialists, but there is no question that other countries have has beat soundly when it comes to basic care, care that will more likely affect me than a "House MD" type of rare cancer senario.
Post a Comment