National Healthcare

The options are clear. With single payer, gov't decides what and what isn't covered. If it isn't covered, you are out of luck. There is a lack of choice and a bureaucrat makes the insurance decisions.Also, with a $616 billion projected deficit (CBO), is it really the time for the gov't to expand and increase spending by an additional $1.5 trillion or so, which would require a doubling of current income and corporate taxes and more so? All of these tax and spending escapades all to destroy our current health care system?We should listen to reason. Important Facts to Consider R1: Rationing Wait times are longer in single-payer systems. - More than 50% of Swedish people have to wait longer than 3 months for surgery. [11] - The World Health Organization has recently called [England's NHS] a deliverer of 'third world cancer care'. [11] - In Canada, "only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards." And most emergency room patients are in dire need of treatment. [11] R2: Medical R&D Canada has virtually eliminated spending on R&D [12]. Private markets incentivize innovation naturally, while gov't doesn't. What is the better alternative? - A system where millions of individuals make their own personal health care decisions based on their unique needs, or - A system where a handful of bureaucrats write up a system of thick red tape which imposes top down governmental rule and tyranny upon the populace. ..................................................... Free Market Health Care Firm Competition With free and open competition, personal responsibility is the self-regulator of the market. Insurance can be crafted to fit individual's health care needs at the most efficient cost. Individuals make decisions based on their own unique situations, and the market provides the care they need. Net harm of regulation in health insurance is $169 billion, or $2,200 a family. [1] Health insurance regulations increase costs and decrease choice, leading to 7 million uninsured, and is the source of 22,000 deaths annually. [1] Allowing free markets, with free entry, and tight competition strongly reduces health care costs. In contrast, imposing regulations, red tape, and mandates, such as guaranteed issue makes health care more expensive. Health care insurance premiums in heavy regulated New Jersey cost three times as much than in Iowa. [2] We should allow people to buy health insurance across state-lines for more health insurance competition. Firm competition in some marginal areas of health care has resulted in lower costs. That's why in Lasik eye surgery and cosmetic surgery, costs have fallen relative to inflation -- due to competition. [9] [10] Health Care Access People with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance by paying higher premiums because they have a higher risk. Insurers honor contracts to protect reputations. That's why only 3% of medical claims are rejected. [3] Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) Every HSA has two components: - A personal savings account - A catastrophic health insurance policy with a high deductible. Individuals can set set aside tax-free funds and utilize these funds for routine medical care under the deductible. Personal responsibility causes people to be prudent with their health care spending, which reduces total health care costs. Funds accumulate over time to maximize middle-class health care security. Voluntary mutual aid societies can provide free health care to the poor. Portability of health insurance funds. Private Evaluation of Prescription Drugs Private evaluators certify drugs and self regulate markets. Causes greater economic efficiency and causes drug companies to pay attention to details and provide high quality products or face social backlash. FDA currently focuses on safety and efficacy. The FDA should only focus on safety if anything; the market will - through competition and choice - eliminate poor performing drugs. The efficacy trials add probably 40% to the total cost of bringing a drug to the market. [4] Economists have estimated that when a change in procedure caused the FDA to review drugs more quickly, the health benefits of quicker access to new drugs were roughly 12 times as great as the costs of additional adverse drug reaction, and that the change resulted in no increase in deaths. [5] [6] Voluntary Licenses Mandatory licensing fosters monopolized markets and increases costs. Voluntary licensing across state lines enhances competition, quality, and lowers costs. Greater medical supply = lower costs to consumers, greater efficiency, and greater growth, and similarly undermines monopolies and political power of the medical complex. Consumers would rely on credentials to make informed decisions and what medical professionals they would go to, making market forces improve quality. Credentials include medical degrees from Universities. Market Innovation Some medical providers would specialize to certain needs. A person with congestive heart failure could choose a clinic that specializes in exactly this, with data available on health outcomes and cost (markets have an incentive to provide this). Specialized and personalized care at a better price, and with better outcomes through competition. Markets, and businesses also have a strong motivation to innovate and invest in R&D. Cures for diseases and conditions yield financial gains for innovaters, and thus the profit motive incentivizes healthy creativity and R&D. -----Conclusion------ By making individuals embrace responsibility for their own health care, you cut the moral hazard and cause households to shop around for the lowest costs. Free market healthcare would create a system that maximizes economic efficiency, drastically lowers costs, lowers health care inflation, and incentivizes innovation through the "invisible hand" of the free market. Health care is about 17% of total USA GDP, which equals out to about $2.601 trillion in spending. [7] As stated, we spend about 12% of our healthcare ourselves. The RAND Health Insurance experiment [8] compared two groups. The first group had free care. The second group had 95% cost sharing. The first group with "free" care used 45% more care. However, both had the same health results. Using simple math, in a consumer healthcare system we would use about 39.316% less healthcare (rough estimate) than we do now. With probably minimal effects on actual health. -----This is for a total of at least $1.023 trillion in savings, or $3,200 a person. "When individuals are free to choose, and personal responsibility is aligned with prudent individual spending, markets can work to improve quality and lower costs in health care." Benefits from Consumer-Driven Health Care - State of the Art Quality - More Affordable Care - Expanded Access to Care - Greater Innovation and R&D - Stronger Middle Class Security - Economic Growth - Maximized Efficiency - Personal Freedom and Responsibility - American Competitiveness Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 195 [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 152-155 [5] Olson, Mary K. "Are Novel Drugs More Risky for Patients than Less Novel Drugs?" Journal of Health Care: Government, market Processes, and the Public Interest, edited by Roger Feldman. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2000. [6] Philipson, Thomas J., and others. "Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of the FDA: The Case of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts." National Bureau of Economic Reserch Working paper no. 11724, 2005. [7] Zakaria, Fareed, prod. "Overhauling Healthcare." CNN Presents. CNN: 2012. T.V. [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] "The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care", By Dr. Gratzer, 94 [11] *Sources are found easily in R1* [12] http://www.independent.org...