…but they’re not written by me.
Cato@Liberty had two good posts this morning by Cannon and Tanner that give a healthy, friendly look at the Coburn/Ryan Patient’s Choice Act.
My two cents: the battle isn’t over, guys! Put out some reform ideas that don’t include mandates and price controls. Find a way to encourage private charity again and to move the government out of the picture–not further in. Those ideas are out there!
Would the Health Reform Prescriptions Offered by President Obama and Congressional Leaders Help Patients?
STATEMENT ON HEALTH REFORMFrom the Health Policy Consensus Group1
President Obama repeatedly has reassured the American people, “If you’ve got health care already, and probably the majority of you do, then you can keep your plan if you are satisfied with it. You can keep your choice of doctor.”2 Research shows 82 percent of Americans rate the health care they receive as good to excellent.3
At the same time, there are serious problems of cost, value, and access throughout our health sector. It is vital to address these problems. But any health reform proposal to change what needs fixing also must preserve the freedom, innovation, and quality of American medical care that people value. We believe a better functioning, more competitive, and transparent marketplace would cover more people and deliver the higher-value care we seek.
We are gravely concerned that several of the proposals offered by the President and the Congressional leadership would make matters worse, not better. These flawed prescriptions for radical change should not be accepted as part of any serious and sustainable health reform proposal:
* A new government health insurance plan
* An employer “play-or-pay” mandate
* A uniform, government-defined package of benefits.
* A mandate that individuals must purchase insurance.
* A National Health Insurance Exchange extending federal regulatory powers over private insurance.
* Federal interference in the practice of medicine through a federal health board, comparative effectiveness review, and other government intrusions into medical decision-making.
We explain below why we believe these ideas would diminish individual Americans’ freedom and control over their personal health decisions.
This is a good bunch, one with whom we’re honored to stand. If you haven’t already done so, sign the Do No Harm petition.
today in South Dakota a victory for the freedom of health care sharing ministries occurred.
The Senate Commerce Committee voted 6-1 to kill SB25, which would have all but outlawed HCSMs in South Dakota. The vote was decisive enough that the Division of Insurance should leave the issue alone for while.
ARE YOU PAYING TOO MUCH FOR HEALTH INSURANCE? | National Center for Policy Analysis
Wherever one looks, health care costs are on the rise. The average premium for family coverage has increased 119 percent since 1999. To figure out where singles and families are making the greatest contributions to their employer-sponsored health insurance plans, Forbes magazine looked at data in the 2006 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, an annual survey that collects information about employer-sponsored health insurance offerings in the United States.
NCPA has a post about high cost of insurance, and the things that affect the cost of health insurance. High costs related to state and federal regulations are another way that non-insurance options like health care sharing ministries keep costs down. Because we are a charitable, non-regulated option (though without the guarantees that come with regulated insurance) our members enjoy something closer to a free market, and our costs are substantially less than health insurance.
Our members have the opportunity to consider whether routine care or emergency care are among the needs shared. They get to vote on whether or not something new and controversial is a part of the ministry sharing, or whether things that are incidental or optional should be shared among the members. They have control over those things with their choice of membership, and the voting power that the members have. And so the options are tailored to the members, by the members, and not superceded by a group of government regulators. The individual consumer gets to choose–which helps keep costs low!
MinnPost – Retail health clinics are popular, but lack oversight
Without that oversight, things can go wrong. Minute Clinic’s public-relations firm released a statement citing accreditation with a nonprofit peer regulatory council called the Joint Commission. however, the Joint Commission doesn’t require that a retail clinic be licensed or certified in order to be a member. A quick call to the Minnesota Department of Health clarified that retail clinics in Minnesota carry a lab license to oversee lab work done at the facilities, but that the facilities themselves are not certified.
Members of health care sharing ministries are self-pay patients at providers. This means that having more options, and convenient option is better. Because it keeps costs down, and allows the patients (our members) the choice of providers, and keeps them in control of the quality/price selection. And that keeps costs down overall. But people like the writer of this editorial want to push for more and more (read: expensive) regulation that will reduce affordable health care choices, and drive up the costs further for all patients, including those of us who pay cash for services.
Senators Propose Bill To Require Employers To Disclose Amount Spent On Health Insurance Premiums For Employees
Grassley said, “As long as people are insulated from the cost and just think someone else is paying for it, then it’s easy to overlook expenses,” adding, “But once they realize they themselves are paying for it, it should spark a genuine conversation about what to do.” In addition, he said, “Some employees might want to receive different compensation in the form of a higher salary, additional vacation, or more child care instead of more health coverage than they need.”
Finally congress doing something that makes sense! Reducing our insulation from the actual costs of health care should be a good thing!
State Policy Network | Blog
As I said, though, having a low-wage job isn’t necessarily an impediment to obtaining stuff that used to be considered out of reach. Why not health care? Surely one reason is that it isn’t treated by government (those regulators again) as a standard product or good: Certificate of Need laws, a tax code that treats health insurance in a way that it treats few other products (how about depending on your employer to buy your food?), and other “products” of government play a large role in making insurance–and more importantly–treatment–expensive.
The State Policy Network has a good blog post here on why cell phone costs are dropping and health care costs are going up. It’s a short read, and a quick and helpful perspective. And a good reminder why more government involvement won’t likely lower the cost.
Patients ’should not expect NHS to save their life if it costs too much’ – Telegraph
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Guidelines (Nice) has ruled for the first time that saving a life cannot be justified at any cost, in a review of its ethical guidelines.The ruling – made by the board of the controversial organisation – contradicts advice it received from its own ‘Citizens Council’ which offers advice from a representative sample of the general public.
In a market based health care system, each patient can decide on his or her own whether a treatment is too costly to make it worth even saving a life. Even n a mixed market like the United States, a patient could go and find charitable sources of funds to do something his insurance company wouldn’t pay for (if insured) or the like.
The NHS system has no competitors, and once a ruling is made it cannot be gone around except by traveling to another nation (as many Candians do today). This is the big risk of government sponsored health care–it leaves no other options and endangers those very vulnerable beginning and end of life decisions.
Yet again how consumer directed systems, like health care sharing ministries, can provide sound principles of care that leave the doctor patient relationship intact, and don’t impose other controls upon personal decisions.
‘Step up’ demand ignores obvious – BostonHerald.com
Gov. Deval Patrick last week told reporters that the business community needs to “step up” by contributing another $130 million to cover the escalating cost of health care reform. That implies, of course, that the business community hasn’t sufficiently “stepped up” to this point.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if the new law in Massachusetts was so great, wasn’t it supposed to be revenue neutral and actually save money? Why then is there a need to tax businesses more?
Business balking at health changes – The Boston Globe Governor Deval Patrick’s proposal to ask businesses, insurers, and hospitals to kick in about $100 million to close a gap in funding for the state’s landmark health insurance law is threatening to fracture the fragile coalition whose support was instrumental in passing the measure.
The Massachusetts plan was claimed to have solved the “uninsured problem” (we don’t believe it was a problem at all) with a “revenue-neutral” change in moving the cost of “uncompenseted care” (funded by taxpayer dollars) to subsidized insurance plans (funded by taxpayer dollars), and then uncompensated care would disappear. All over the news these days people are talking about how wonderful this “solution” is. And now they’re looking for more taxpayer dollars to “close a gap in funding.” Hello tax increase, good-bye “revenue-neutral” “solution.” Here’s a few thoughts: FACT: When something is offered for free, people will take it. Massachusetts quickly has discovered that there are people who were paying for insurance without subsidies who now are taking advantage of the subsidies. FACT: The alleged problem isn’t solved. There are still a large number of uninsured in MA. And now the uninsured will be punished (via taxes and penalties) for not buying insurance like the state told them to. A better solution would have been to eliminate the taxpayer sponsored uncompensated care and to find a way to encourage private charity, like some motivated, generous people are doing in New Jersey. And one way to encourage donations to private charity is to make sure private citizens keep more of their dollars after taxes.