On the occasion of the next Democratic debate, candidates will likely lay out their vision for healthcare. (This is actually a misnomer, since the discussion has nothing to do with actual “care” and refers to “Insurance.”) Most candidates will support a single payer system that puts government in control. Is this a good idea? Let’s take a factual look.
•Medicare for All is estimated to cost about 32 trillion annually. Paying for it would require more then a two fold increase of all federal income taxes on both businesses and individuals.
•Government bureaucrats would decide what procedures you are eligible for and when you could get them.
•Government bureaucrats would decide how much a given procedure would cost, dictating remuneration to doctors and hospitals.
•The participant has no incentive to be frugal or proactive.
This is not a pretty picture folks. But there is a better way, according to Professor Sean Flynn of Scripps College. Following is a synopsis of a system he wrote about on August 2, 2019… and it looks pretty promising to me!
Professor Flynn informs us of a simple two pronged approach that minimizes interference by big government, reduces costs, encourages competition, and improves the health of participants. Better yet, it was invented in America and has been implemented with great success by the state of Indiana, the large successful corporation Whole Foods, and the nation of Indonesia.
The plan has two essential elements:
•Price tags for all procedures.
•A Health Savings Account/ deductible security plan
Providers would be required to post costs for procedures, unlike the present system where prices vary wildly for the same procedure. The present system requires a large bureaucratic system to resolve payment disputes between providers and insurance companies. This expensive process would be mostly eliminated when pricing is known up front, saving billions a year. Competition can do wonders, as we have seen with LASIK eye surgery, which started in the 1990s costing four grand per eye but is now commonly done for half that. What’s not to love about comparison shopping?
The Health Savings Account combined with a deductible security plan has proven workable. Participants carry an insurance policy that has an annual deductible. The deductible is covered by their HSA, which in turn is funded by the sponsor of the policy, the sponsor being the individual or the employer. The unused balance in the HSA remands to the participant to use as they see fit. This gives participants reason to be frugal and keep costs down.
Does this system work? All indications say yes. A two year study in Indiana found that:
•Participants were 67% less likely to go to the ER.
•Opted for generic prescriptions, resulting in an 18% savings
•Overall 35% decrease in medical spending
•A significant uptick in preventive care, improved health outcomes.
Now let’s look at “ Medicare for All” as implemented in Oregon, 2008.
•36% cost INCREASE.
•No improvement in participant health.
How about Singapore? With this innovative system, Singapore spends 77% per capita less than America for health care, and 2.4% of GDP, compared to 8% GDP expenditure in America. How does Singapore compare to the “Single Payer” countries? About a 60% savings compared to Japan, the UK, and Canada, with better outcomes than all of the above. With all the savings, Indonesia pays for indigent care.
Like election integrity, healthcare should not be a partisan issue. Government intrusion in healthcare can and should be kept to a minimum. Contact your legislators and tell them to give competition, free enterprise, and common sense a chance….while urging them to vigorously resist budget busting, unfair, inefficient “ Medicare for All.”
God Bless until next time, Jeff
Kim Wentworth says
Greg, if the world has such great systems of care why does the world run to U. S.A. for their needs? Can you name me ONE program run by the “state” that is ON budget and a success.
Thomas E.H. says
@ Kim
Have you ever seen a state program run better by cutting taxes?
@ Jeff
//Medicare for All is estimated to cost about 32 trillion annually.//
What a dunce. It’s 32 trillion over ten years and was the highest of the estimates. You know how much Americans pay per year now? 3.5 trillion. 3.5 trillion times ten years is 35 trillion. Because math hurts.
Greg Rendahl says
Jeff, while I disagree with much of this, let’s focus on areas of some agreement. Yes, health savings accounts are a nice tool for some in the middle class. Now, let’s look at the term “Medicare for all.” I’m on Medicare, but also have a private insurance supplement which I see as extremely important. However we eventually fix our expensive, inadequate healthcare mess, I guarantee you that we will retain private healthcare insurance which is a fairly common situation in the world. The system in Singapore is a fairly decent public-private system just as are several others in Europe such as in Germany and Switzerland. Here are a few facts about the Singapore system. The government owns most of the hospitals, most doctors work for the government, the government forces workers to have health savings accounts that can only be used for government approved procedures and drugs. In Singapore the government tends to subsidize medical treatment, whereas in America our system tends to subsidize insurance. Singapore has a fairly transparent system of negotiating drug prices, whereas here in America we are stuck with the idiocy of a law that does not allow Medicare to negotiate any drug prices.