|
Craig Westover wrote a great op-ed in Tuesday's Pi-Press that I somehow missed. It isn't overstatement to say that it's must reading. Here's how Mr. Westover introduces us to the flaws in the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force's plan:
My disagreement with the Transformation Task Force recommendations is not simply my preference for free-market solutions over government-run programs, nor even that I question the potential efficacy of task force recommendations (many of which are embedded in bills being rushed through the legislative process). My objection is more basic.
The devil is not in the details of the report, he's sitting in plain sight: The task force recommendations are a giant leap toward classical corporate socialism, a "friendly fascism," but fascism nonetheless.
Some things need to be called what they are. "Fascism" is a perfectly good word when used not as an insult but as an academic description. The task force recommendations are an integration of government and private corporations that destroys the distinction and endangers individual liberty and the quality of health care. It is the task force recommendations, not the task force members, to which the "fascist" label can be justly applied.
If the task force members are to be faulted, it is for letting their good intentions blind them to the unhealthy consequences of what they propose. Their report is the result of good people succumbing to the conceit that they, or any central committee, have the knowledge and authority to manage the health care system and make life-and-death health care decisions for others.
It's important to note that consensus and common sense aren't automatically interchangeable. Consensus simply means that everyone agrees.
I've often seen instances where a person displays common sense while those around him don't see the wisdom until it hits them right between the eyes. In this instance, I'd say that there's an overabundance of unwarranted consensus and precious little common sense concerning this plan.
When I attended the health care forum that Tarryl Clark hosted, it was obvious that government's involvement in the health care industry was hindering it, not improving it. Here's one thing that I won't forget from that meeting:
One gentleman talked about how he had to call into the state at 9:00 am on behalf of his son, who has a mental health illness. This gentleman said that sometimes the lines were all busy. Other times, he'd get through, then get put on hold for several hours.
Anytime that the government controls health care, bad things happen. The more mandates that the government imposes, the more expensive health insurance gets. The more mandates that the government imposes, the more limited the health insurance options become.
Here's another statement that speaks volumes about what the Commission's goal is:
"Successful transformation of Minnesota's health care system will require active participation and engagement from consumers, employers, health care providers, health plans and government," declares the Task Force Report. The obligations the Task Force envisions for the first four groups require fundamental behavior change; government's obligation is to "enact the necessary changes to law to implement the transformation plan."
For all their talk about Minnesota's health care crisis, most of the fixes don't require "transformation." What they need more of is more competition to cause cost collapses. There's a reason why other states are copying the Minnesota model. It's because it's seen as the best in the United States. (SIDENOTE: The reason why the education establishment doesn't want vouchers is because they don't want competition affecting them.) Mr. Westover brings that point home beautifully here:
Health care is a limited economic resource that will be rationed. The question is, "Will you manage your consumption of health care, or will someone else manage it for you?"
In a managed care system, health care is rationed for you; someone controls the supply of health care irrespective of demand; the pie is fixed and everybody more or less receives an equal share of the fixed amount. In a free-market system, you ration your own health care by making choices; choice, your slice of the pie, is always growing, albeit with some people having more choices than you and others fewer.
In a free-market system, health care is rationed by the relationship between price and the demand for service at that price, not by a central committee fixing supply and price.
The contrast of these two systems is stark. It is the difference between a managed health care system in which patients queue up for a 38-week wait for a hip replacement and an expanding market of competing Lasik surgery centers offering steadily declining prices and higher levels of quality to greater numbers of people.
For all the complaining against various parts of the health care industry, that last paragraph shows how well the system works when it isn't overburdened by regulations. The singlepayer advocates admit that their plan has serious shortcomings. Here's what I posted about that type of system in January:
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Let's admit that that last point isn't supported by real life proof. I talked with a businessman friend of mine when I first read that statement. I then asked him this question:
"Other than the government making something illegal, what's the best way to get businesses to stop doing something?" Here's his immediate response, which I knew was coming: "Take away their profits." It's time that we were honest about the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force's plan: While it isn't singlepayer in its purest form, there aren't many differences between it and singlepayer.
It's also worth asking yourself something: Do we want a system that its staunchest allies admit will cut revenues to pharmaceutical companies that "could lead to a reduction in overall research and development"? I'd submit that anyone who's child, spouse or sibling that's been cured of an otherwise life-threatening disease by a drug that the pharmaceutical company has produced would say that they'd rather have the current system.
Let's admit something else, too: We're just seeing the tip of the proverbial iceberg right now. If we don't screw the current system up, we'll see life-changing cures developed at an ever-quicker pace. That highlights something else. Government is too cumbersome to keep up with that pace. Getting government involved only guarantees that it'd slow down the pace that we're currently witnessing.
My final analysis is that the Commission has some laudable goals but that they're hoping to accomplish those goals by using an antiquated, unsuitable model that can't possibly hope to accomplish their goals. It's time to let the market operate with as few restrictions as possible.
After all, that's what's fueled the health care transformation thus far.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
