Quality and Universal
The myth behind quality universal healthcare and why all is not lost
J. A. Hoffman
The presidential election in 2008 will probably include much discussion about healthcare until the election, pundits will continue to sound off on the issue. However as an active member of the Republican Party, I must come to a conclusion on the issue as well as come up with an intellectually, philosophically and fiscally responsible answer.
I believe that our system is flawed and is at a point where the public opinion must be answered. In developing my answer to this question, I interviewed a medical doctor, Chris Nelson, who practices medicine in the specialty of pediatrics. I presented him with the proposed Californian plan (see the editorial in the Spectator's February issue). His response was one of apprehension to the required pay-in to the system by employers, hospitals doctors was and doubt of it having a positive overall effect on the industry and the macro-economy. The plan has employers paying all the cost of healthcare for their employees or paying 4 percent into the system. Dr. Nelson commented that this would have an adverse effect on the macro economy forcing cooperation's to lower compensation to employees and in fact limit the incentive for cooperation's to keep high employment in the American sector, rather cost-benefit ratio would force company's to move jobs overseas. It limits the incentive for employers to continue creating jobs with the expressed knowledge that they would be required by governmental mandate to provide healthcare for their employers. This mandate in effect would force businesses to find other venues for employees in less a restrictive political environment.
The plan also includes forced payment by doctors of 2 percent gross compensation which Dr. Nelson opined that that could be as high as 10 percent net of medical doctors pay. As well, the plan includes a 4 percent tax on hospitals. Which is the most damaging tax, says Dr. Nelson. Most hospitals only break even by the end of fiscal year. Consequently, this tax would have to be balanced by something else, the continued increase in medical costs and a decrease in incentive for highly educated medical professionals.
Dr. Nelson also commented on how the average family pays for medical expenses. The most common method is co-pay with private insurance provided by an employer or bought privately. As well, many people who seek medical care for their children are on some form of governmental plan. As well, some people choose to pay for care out of pocket simply by the good old method of cash. The system is very forgiving as well. Dr. Nelson informed me that if a patient cannot pay, hospitals under the Providence Healthcare System right it off. It is against the spirit of healthcare to send collections after people who cannot pay for a hospital visit.
Technology is another area our system is known for. While it is expensive, our medical technology is first class. Part of the problem with universal systems is there are no profit incentives for firms who innovate and manufacture medical technology like 3-D Ultrasound. In Canada and the Scandinavian country's there is no profit incentive for technology. For example if you are suffering from headaches and other systems of a brain tumor, you will have to wait up to a year to get a simple CAT scan. Well, you could be dead before then. Nelson commented this is why so many Canadians come to America for cancer treatment.
To stop the raising cost of healthcare, we need to pass Tort reform. When someone sues a hospital for 50 million dollars, that hospitals insurance costs skyrocket. This is why healthcare is so cheap in Cuba, India and other similar country's. You cannot sue the doctor. If they leave a sponge in you after a surgery, that's to bad. Our costs are not due to greedy doctors. Nor are they due to greedy insurance companies. While they are difficult to work with sometimes (Dr. Nelson can vouch for this), they serve their purpose. Rather, it is the "jackpot" settlements (those settlements for millions of dollars) that increase costs for everyone. There is an incompatibility of our economic system with socialized healthcare as well. While our system is imperfect, I would rather have a system that is a world innovator and leader. Yes, it takes a few minutes to fill out paperwork and deal with insurance issues, but if I take ill with something serious I know that I live in a nation with a first class healthcare system.
J. A. Hoffman
The presidential election in 2008 will probably include much discussion about healthcare until the election, pundits will continue to sound off on the issue. However as an active member of the Republican Party, I must come to a conclusion on the issue as well as come up with an intellectually, philosophically and fiscally responsible answer.
I believe that our system is flawed and is at a point where the public opinion must be answered. In developing my answer to this question, I interviewed a medical doctor, Chris Nelson, who practices medicine in the specialty of pediatrics. I presented him with the proposed Californian plan (see the editorial in the Spectator's February issue). His response was one of apprehension to the required pay-in to the system by employers, hospitals doctors was and doubt of it having a positive overall effect on the industry and the macro-economy. The plan has employers paying all the cost of healthcare for their employees or paying 4 percent into the system. Dr. Nelson commented that this would have an adverse effect on the macro economy forcing cooperation's to lower compensation to employees and in fact limit the incentive for cooperation's to keep high employment in the American sector, rather cost-benefit ratio would force company's to move jobs overseas. It limits the incentive for employers to continue creating jobs with the expressed knowledge that they would be required by governmental mandate to provide healthcare for their employers. This mandate in effect would force businesses to find other venues for employees in less a restrictive political environment.
The plan also includes forced payment by doctors of 2 percent gross compensation which Dr. Nelson opined that that could be as high as 10 percent net of medical doctors pay. As well, the plan includes a 4 percent tax on hospitals. Which is the most damaging tax, says Dr. Nelson. Most hospitals only break even by the end of fiscal year. Consequently, this tax would have to be balanced by something else, the continued increase in medical costs and a decrease in incentive for highly educated medical professionals.
Dr. Nelson also commented on how the average family pays for medical expenses. The most common method is co-pay with private insurance provided by an employer or bought privately. As well, many people who seek medical care for their children are on some form of governmental plan. As well, some people choose to pay for care out of pocket simply by the good old method of cash. The system is very forgiving as well. Dr. Nelson informed me that if a patient cannot pay, hospitals under the Providence Healthcare System right it off. It is against the spirit of healthcare to send collections after people who cannot pay for a hospital visit.
Technology is another area our system is known for. While it is expensive, our medical technology is first class. Part of the problem with universal systems is there are no profit incentives for firms who innovate and manufacture medical technology like 3-D Ultrasound. In Canada and the Scandinavian country's there is no profit incentive for technology. For example if you are suffering from headaches and other systems of a brain tumor, you will have to wait up to a year to get a simple CAT scan. Well, you could be dead before then. Nelson commented this is why so many Canadians come to America for cancer treatment.
To stop the raising cost of healthcare, we need to pass Tort reform. When someone sues a hospital for 50 million dollars, that hospitals insurance costs skyrocket. This is why healthcare is so cheap in Cuba, India and other similar country's. You cannot sue the doctor. If they leave a sponge in you after a surgery, that's to bad. Our costs are not due to greedy doctors. Nor are they due to greedy insurance companies. While they are difficult to work with sometimes (Dr. Nelson can vouch for this), they serve their purpose. Rather, it is the "jackpot" settlements (those settlements for millions of dollars) that increase costs for everyone. There is an incompatibility of our economic system with socialized healthcare as well. While our system is imperfect, I would rather have a system that is a world innovator and leader. Yes, it takes a few minutes to fill out paperwork and deal with insurance issues, but if I take ill with something serious I know that I live in a nation with a first class healthcare system.
posted by Mr. Hoffman | 3:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home