"Liberals have a point when they argue that the price competition in our private markets is something less than robust.
Because consumers don't pay out of pocket for much of their health care, they don't shop around for bargains the way they do for cars or toilet paper. Nor it is clear that people would flock to the heart surgeon in town who advertises bargain-basement rates."
Which got me thinking "hey, here's a liberal who gets it. Here's a liberal who is now going to come forward and advocate for true market reforms that would ENCOURAGE competition." I was very excited. And then very disappointed:"That's not to say there aren't other things we could do -- many fixes are already included in bills before Congress. These include the government-sponsored health-care exchanges that would bring national insurance companies to nearly every market in the country and proposals to begin paying doctors and hospitals for the quality of the health care they provide rather than the quantity. There is also a provision requiring that companies participating in the new insurance exchanges use no more than 15 cents of each premium dollar for administrative costs and profits."
So there it is--a liberal view of steps toward market reforms as a way of creating price competition. Except, WHERE IS THE MARKET REFORM? Where is any suggestion that small businesses should be able to pool? Where is the suggestion that health plans should be able to cross state lines? Where is the suggestion that the favored tax status of employer provided plans be ended as a way of empowering individuals in the market? All we get is a menu of government-driven regulation and requirements for an industry already SWIMMING in regulation.
Want market forces at play in health care? Great. Mandate HSAs, Health Savings Accounts. Make the insurance companies sell high deductible policies (5 grand or more) and shazaam you have market forces at work. Q. What are the two areas of medicine where prices have actually come down? A. Cosmetic and lasik eye surgery. Why? Insurance typically doesn't cover those so it's supply and demand.
ReplyDeleteYou definitely get a hrrumph from me, but where is the leadership on voicing the GOP alternative. Outside of the wonks or intellectually curious (on either side), I'll bet there are not many rank and file who know what the core GOP alternatives would be. The GOP.org website is still being "renovated" and its latest information on health care is from the 2008 platform. The Republican Policy Committee's (www.rpc.senate.gov) site doesn't even highlight health care in a meaningful way.
ReplyDeleteRather than solely be the loyal opposition, the Republicans might need to think about being the loyal alternative.
I think we are on the verge of being screwed as a nation. Either the Dems win and give us worse health care at higher cost toward bankrupting us or the GOP succeeds and we continue on the current path to oblivion. If they think they can oppose now, retake the Hill in '10 and then succeed with the right alternative, they are just as vapid as the left.
Inter state portability
ReplyDeleteI do believe, in the end, that healthcare cost can be decreased, and the system as a whole made more efficient. Don't forget, however, that the U.S. is the world's gold standard as far as health care quality and innovation are concerned and this of course comes a cost. Simply put, if you control/mandate costs too much, expect a decrease in the quality and innovation that we have all come to know and love. Also, liberals such as Pearlstein need to stop with this apple to apple comparison stuff: healthcare is not like toilet paper, a car or a parcel shipping company, it is a unique entity and should be viewed as such.
ReplyDelete