Posted by Shyam Moondra
Most Americans thought the objective behind the proposed health care reform was to reduce costs by at least 30%. That means, a family that spends $6,000 on health care today would spend no more than $3,500 under the new plan. The idea was that if the costs came down, many uninsured people, who can't afford to buy medical insurance today, would be able to afford insurance and thus the ranks of uninsured will shrink. However, now it looks like the health care initiative has been hijacked by those who are pushing for universal coverage (read that as creating new entitlement programs). Rather than focusing on how to reduce costs, the debate is now centered on how to pay for new spending of $1 trillion over the next ten years (and perhaps more later) to cover every American. The universal coverage will be achieved by expanding the existing Medicaid program for the poor and by providing subsidies to those who are not "poor" but can't afford to buy medical insurance. Mandated health care would also lead to financial difficulties for those who don't qualify for Medicaid or other subsidies. The people are genuinely concerned that the proposed plan will in fact increase their health care costs and they will be worse off than today.
An overwhelming majority of Americans don't want any new entitlement program and they certainly don't want to spend $1 trillion, especially at a time when the federal budget deficit is running at a record level. And that explains the intense opposition by a majority of Americans to the proposals currently under consideration by the Democrats. As the people learn more and more about the details of the proposed reforms, the opposition grows exponentially, as is evident from the recent opinion polls. It would be a mistake to label the growing dissatisfaction as something instigated by the Republicans.
President Obama says that either we do the proposed health care plan or maintain the status quo (meaning costs will keep rising). However, that's a false choice. The American people are saying that we need to do health care reforms but without creating a new costly entitlement program - they just want to make some structural changes that will bring down the health care costs.
The present bills being considered in the Democrat controlled Senate and House should be scrapped and the lawmakers should go back to the drawing board. The Congress should focus on how to bring down costs by making appropriate structural changes in how health care is delivered to the American people. Below are a few examples what the Congress could do:
· Offer an optional government plan to induce more competition in the industry. This option will provide an added protection if the other methods of cost reductions don't work.
· Change the mal-practice laws so that doctors and hospitals will be able to lower their charges and they will not have to over-prescribe tests and treatments, thereby reducing costs. The current House bills do not touch upon the issue of tort reform, apparently because of the opposition of the trial lawyers who contribute heavily to the campaign coffers of the Democrats.
· Change drug patent laws to enable generic offerings sooner. Allow re-importation of drugs from Canada and Mexico. Under the government plan, negotiate lower drug prices.
· Reform insurance industry and regulate their profit margins (just like profits of utilities are regulated). Ban unfair practices such as charging more for or denying insurance for pre-existing conditions.
· Make the necessary changes in how the insurance is structured, so that the patients would be induced to weigh in the costs involved when choosing service providers or making decisions on treatment alternatives, just as they would when buying any other product or service. Incentives to save money will encourage patients to shop-around which would create a truly competitive environment and keep a lid on the prices.
· Eliminate health care system inefficiencies. Today's record-keeping procedures tend to be cumbersome that add to the health care costs. The government could help develop a comprehensive solution that takes advantage of the modern information technologies.
I don't think we need to undertake a grand plan and waste tax dollars. The widespread opposition to the Obama approach is genuine and if Democrats go ahead with this ill-conceived approach of universal coverage, they will pay dearly in 2010 when they could lose the control of the Senate and the House.
