We have a few weeks before Congress will pass a healthcare bill. This is the time to take a fresh look at the healthcare industry, and discuss possible solutions to the problems it has.
Washington politicians are telling us that the status-quo is not an option, that it’s time for a change, and we should speak if we have a proposal to improve the healthcare. So here it is. This proposal is not as radical as the bill proposed in the Congress, but it’s the only proposal I am aware of that when implemented, will really reduce the price, will really increase the choice and the competition, will really be deficit neutral, will really provide free or almost free cover for all uninsured and all people with preexisting conditions, and will really not raise a penny in taxes on anybody.
The US healthcare is the envy of the world. Most advances in medical technology are made in the US. Most people with the serious illness, if they have a choice and the means, would come to this country for cure. Most Americans are satisfied with the system we have.
Yet, our healthcare has some undeniable problems.
The price of the health insurance is too high and rising too fast.
Tens of millions of people are uninsured. For some people it’s a choice, but many are not able to afford the cost of insurance.
Fear of losing insurance. Many millions of people are fearful of losing their insurance because of the job loss.
Preexistent conditions. It’s hard to get insurance for people with preexistent conditions for a reasonable cost.
Deterioration of services. It’s undeniable that over the years the medical service deteriorated despite the enormous advance of medical technology and computers. Where are the house calls? Where are the family doctors?
Here is a comprehensive plan on how to fix all of these problems.
1. Dump the FDA.
Because of the FDA the cost of bringing a new drug is about half -a-billion dollars and the time to bring it to the patient is about 8 years. If, as often proclaimed, hundreds of thousands of people save their lives every year with a new miracle drug, it stands to reason that hundreds of thousands people die each year while the FDA keep the drug off the market. And it’s just for one drug, for one year. So it’s not an exaggeration to say that millions of people die because of the FDA.
This cost and this waiting period have the chilling effect on the development of new drugs. We are probably hundreds years behind in development of new drugs only because of this.
The argument that people would not know which drug to use without the FDA is ridiculous. To get the drug recommended by the doctors, the manufactures would pay a small part of the half-a billion for the drug to be reviewed by the reputable experts.
2. End the war on drugs.
Alcohol prohibition resulted in the same violence as the war on drugs. Any drug should be available at the drug store. It’s absurd to wait for an appointment, pay for a visit to a doctor a few hundred dollars, to get antibiotics at the pharmacy (and to sign that “yes, I know what to do with these pills” form) before you get them. Making any drug available to anybody will bring the cost of the drugs and the entire medical care down.
It also happens to be a moral and practical decision as well. It’s immoral to prevent people from buying any chemical substance that want for their own consumption. After all, we do own our bodies, don’t we? It’s also impractical. Do we want to restrict access to perfume, gasoline, and other substances that could cause harm if swallowed? Do we want doctors to write prescriptions for anything but organic vegetable? There are cases when people dye after drinking a lot of water. Should we regulate the amount of water bought by an individual as well?
3. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid.
Not only it’ll cut about 20% of federal spending, it’ll stop the inflow of extra money and that will cut the cost of the healthcare dramatically. Seniors will get their insurance the same way as everybody else, through private contracts or charity.
4. Remove the doctors/government monopoly on medical services and medical education.
There’s a myth deeply penetrated into the American psyche that doctors and the government should be responsible for the healthcare design of the nation. We all know that most politicians are corrupt and they look for their own interest not for the interest of the people. Yet, the doctor’s profession is so respectful, that it’s not widely understood that they also look for their interest first.
By the way, as opposed to the politicians, I think that’s the way it should be – the doctors should look for their interest first. I want my doctor to be motivated by a good outcome when he is treating me. I want him to know that he might lose his practice if his patients are not happy with his treatments. I would try to avoid a doctor who does not really care about his interest and therefore doesn’t care about success of his practice, which is the case of all government-run and many of not-for-profit companies.
I am also not afraid of a doctor who prescribes me a treatment or surgery that I don’t feel I should have. I can deal with that. People deal with pushy marketers all the time in all other spheres of life. We can consult with others, but it’s up to us to decide what product or service to buy. I’d rather have this problem of making a choice than a system when I am not offered a certain treatment because somebody else made a decision that people of my age or my condition don’t need it. Just tell me all the options that are out there, make the recommendation and let me make the decision.
What I am against is the notion that the doctors should be in charge of our healthcare – we should be in charge.
The American Medical Association was established in 1847. Almost immediately it merged with the government through establishing medical boards at each state. And then the doctors use the government force to fight the market forces: to make sure to kill all the competition and to keep their salaries high. It was done by achieving two goals.
One, through these boards, doctors made sure that only individual licensed by these boards could deliver medical care. If Jesus shows up now and starts curing people, he would be taken to jail because he doesn’t have the license.
Two, American Medical Association has been able to restrict the number of medical schools. Did you know that because of the AMA we have fewer medical schools in the U.S. now than 1oo years ago even though the U.S. population tripled in size?
Anybody should be able to give a medical advice. If I want you to pay you for your medical advice, why anybody on Earth should prevent you from giving me the advice? And any university should be able to hire experts and offer medical degrees. If there’s enough demand for qualified students who want to became doctors, why anybody on Earth should prevent a university to help them achieve their dream?
5. Stop government regulation of health insurance industry.
Some modest proposals of restrainging certain aspects of government regulations are discussed in Congress once in a while. For example, letting people ability to buy out-of-state insurance, or offering multiple year insurances, and so on. Why don’t we let the market come up with whatever product people want? Why do we want to create artificial barriers and then have lengthy discussion which of the thousands of constrains may be released?
And there should be many different options, for a different price of course, from accidental and basic insurances to the most advanced covering everything plans. It’s absurd to think that a single plan should cover everybody. What about organ transplants? What about treatments that cost millions?
Also, a single, universal health insurance plan will stiffen medical advance. Who eill be interested in developing new and expensive treatments if there’s no chance for them to became a part of the universal plan?
And any new treatment is expensive at the beginning.
Uh, but what about preexisting conditions and uninsured… That brings us to the last step of this program.
6. Make medical insurance charity 100% deductible.
The effect will be immediate. People will gladly allocate their taxes to private charity. It’ll be enough money to provide basic insurance to those who need it and to the people with preexisting condition.
1 response so far ↓
1 Zak Maymin // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:07 am
This article was also published on OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Six-simple-steps-to-fix-ou-by-Zak-Maymin-090820-504.html#allcomments
It had 7 comments. Here they are:
Scott Baker
Additional Observations
Editor’s Note: Here at OEN, we like to present a wide variety of viewpoints, mostly, but not always, with a Progressive slant. This article fits into the ‘not always’ category. Personally, I agree with almost nothing the author has proposed. Uneducated laymen are in no position to judge what medical practitioners or medications are best for them if they can’t even go to people who have been trained for that purpose. Medical schools, for all their faults, exist for a reason – because it is simply not sufficient to get medical information from WebMD, your friends, or your local drug dealer. Eliminating Medicare/Medicaid would eliminate the old people who depend on it, as they were eliminated before these programs came into existence. Most OEN readers would probably vote to extend those working programs to more people, not reduce them. They work, they keep people alive longer. They are underfunded, or poorly funded, but that is another discussion and there are lots of articles (including my own) about that.
And an ‘open-market’ of drugs, available to all, unverified by even the admittedly insufficient FDA would lead to mass-deaths, as patients would be turned into mass-experiments. We already have Big Pharma funding so-called ‘Independent Reviews’ and their bias is a big reason we can’t trust the medicines we take. While I support de-criminalization of Marijuana, I would never dream of removing drug treatment programs for it, let alone monitoring side effects of prescription drugs by medical professionals. What’s next? Should we all build own cars? Our own houses? Butcher our own food? Would you want to drive/live-in/eat such products?
The author seeks to undo regulations in the health care industry the way regulations were undone in the financial industry. This time, instead of paying with our wallets and purses, we will pay with our lives.
____________
Zak Maymin
Additional Observations?
I am not against people asking medical practitioners for advice. I go even further. I am against forbidding people asking advice from anybody they want.
I am not against medical schools. I go even further. I am against restriction on the quantity of medical schools.
I am not against medical insurance for old people. I go even further. I offer a real reform for them to get any insurance of their choice for free.
“” insufficient FDA would lead to mass-deaths, as patients would be turned into mass-experiments.” Come on. Nobody forces you to participate in any medical experiment. Nobody forces you to trust Big Pharma either. That’s the main difference between the Big Pharama and the Big Gov. The big Pharma doesn’t have the enforcement mechanism and can’t prevent anybody else from reviewing the drugs.
You have to decide whether you let the government criminalize any drug or not. You can’t pick and choose which one to criminalize. Otherwise you leave too much to the politicians and to the mob – you can’t count that whatever politicians you support will be in power forever. I am glad you don’t want to prevent me from using Marijuana. But why stop there? And who should decide where to stop?
What’s next? Alcohol? We’ve been there, for many years”
Yes, we should build our own cars and our own houses. We shouldn’t let the Gov decide how big the pressure should be in our showers and toilets, how bright our lights can be, what temperature we can have in our houses, what seatbelts we should use, and so on. This is just silly – as long as we don’t harm others, whose business is it to decide for us what products to use?
Progressivness stands for real reforms, not for same old government regulations that’s been plugging us for years.
____________________
RobKall
Professor Venkman had the reply,
With all due respect to you, Zak, and as much respect as I can scrape up for libertarianism, which ain’t much….
In Ghostbuster, Bill Murray, playing Professor Peter Venkman, describes what your wishlist would produce;
“Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
That’s what libertarianism would lead to. You want absence of all regulations– that’s a milton friedman kind of thing. Problem is, it’s a bad theory that’s never been proven.
I’ll tell you what has been proven– the laws of nature. That’s right. Nature has laws. Disobey them and you die, or fail to flourish. And socieities and cultures need laws too. Your idea doesn’t cut it. Take the FDA, for example. I don’t particularly like the way it currently works, but without it there would be fraud, abuse, unsafe products– and the caveat emptor, let the market take care of working things out model would not work. It would allow predators and sociopaths– and there plenty of them in the corporate world– to do a lot of damage.
Take away Medicare? You think that will save money by privatizing it? What planet are YOU on? Your solutions would make things far worse, could bring down this nation. Of course, from a libertarian perspective, that might be a good thing.
_______________
Zak Maymin
Rob, you are already almost a libertarian!
I don’t want absence of all regulations. I want the government protection of my property.
I don’t want to privatize Medicare. I want to replace it with charity. I want people to pay for it voluntarily and if you allow them to deduct their income, they will gladly do it.
I write this article exactly because I don’t want to bring this nation down with the healthcare bill that is under consideration.
You seem to believe that if the right people are in charge, they will use the law to improve our lives. And even if some of us don’t agree with that, tough luck, that’s the necessary price for the civilization.
Here’s an example. You are making a passionate call against corruption by Bush-appointed attorneys. What should be done about it? Change the system, so that the citizens are protected against crooked political appointees. What’s your suggestion? Fire Bush’s people, put your people in charge. You see the problem with your solution?
I came from Russia. I have the experience of knowing that the majority could be wrong. I know that good people could come with outrageous laws if the system allows them. And I know that all too often good people support bad laws.
The only way the public can protect itself from social engineers with good intentions is to not allow passing a law that goes beyond protection of private property. Is there any other possibility?
________________
Man B. Free
FDA kills
Rob, your argument holds no water. You say that without the FDA there would be fraud, abuse, and unsafe products.
Fraud and abuse are and always have been illegal. Adding an extra regulation to prevent fraud and abuse is exactly like this cartoon: http://www.bored.com/comics/dumpster.html
Unsafe products? Unsafe as defined by who, for whom, in what situation? Unsafe as defined by the FDA? Then please PLEASE give us those unsafe products! Unsafe as defined by the doctor who wouldn’t prescribe them anyway? No change. Unsafe as defined by the person who would weigh the risks against the reward, the same way we do when we decide to drive or fly or eat? Bring it on.
Libertarianism is “a bad theory that’s never been proven”? What an absurd misunderstanding of all human history and progress. You think government innovated to bring you the incredible standard of living we have today? Think again.
And not only is libertarianism and freedom in general proven time and time again, whenever progress is made, but there is a moral component too. Who the hell are you to tell me I can’t decide what to put in my body? What kind of ownership do you claim on me, and by what right? When did I ever sell myself into slavery to you?
Or did you just appropriate me for my own good?
Leave me alone.
________________
Simple Truth
Ignorance
Is what comes to mind after reading this article. I am surprised Zak didn’t mention tort reform as a cure for runaway health care costs.
The current status quo for the health care industry is price gouging, billing out a huge list of materials and tests that often times were never used, ridiculous fees for operations, over priced drugs, botched operations and a basic mind set of profiteering off of the sick.
If the government did get out of the way and drop oversight and regulations big insurance and the health services sector would price themselves out of business and wind up just like wall street, holding out tin cups and begging the treasury department for billions. A sorry begging bunch of socialists indeed!
____________________
Zak Maymin
Tort reform and bailouts
Tort reform is a controversial topic which is not really essential to the main issue under discussion – should we have more government regulation of healthcare or less.
The problem with the Wall Street is not whether they begged for money or not, but the fact that our government got scared and bailed them out.
You don’t doubt that it’s possible to run a profitable operation insuring people, do you? So, even if the entire sector goes under, it should just present an opportunity for you and me to start a new business – if the government doesn’t interfere.
Leave a Comment