The previous post was enlightening in many ways, very well written. As I read it, it occurred to me that there is one reason the proposed plan will never happen.
Allowing the free market to operate more with healthcare may improve healthcare, but it would eliminate tons of jobs.
It will never be popular to propose a plan that eliminates jobs, even if it is for the greater good, we are too short-minded and impatient.
28 June 2009
27 June 2009
Health Care Reform: A Solution
Introduction
In a burst of enlightenment and drawing upon discussions in which I've previously taken part, I've formulated the concept for a solution to the health care and health insurance problem. While this may seem simple, it employs the necessary principles to force prices to their appropriate market levels, and all this without a government takeover.
Briefing
There are two key components I bring to the table: First, let the market bring prices down by empowering patients to make all decisions, including their choice of doctor, the procedures they will receive (provided they will pay the price), medicine they will purchase and so on. Second, since insurance companies are allegedly responsible for much of the health care fiasco, reduce the role they play in order to reduce the problems they create. In reality, this is a business model as much as it is a solution. Also, I do not claim that these ideas are original.
How to make things cheap
Competition. Competition for business, competing for customers--that's what drives prices down in a free market--not policies, not regulation, not higher taxes. When businesses compete for customers, they will lower their prices to a value somewhere between what it costs them to provide the service and the price at which you will pay for it--and you're only willing to pay as much as the lowest bidder offering the service you desire at an acceptable level of quality.
The dilemma with insurance and government
There are four principle entities in the market. Computer purchase examples of each: A) When you buy a computer for yourself, with your own money, you look for a good price and a good computer, because you will be left to deal with both. Your choice with determine your satisfaction with the product and the dent left in your bank account. B) If you get a computer but are not paying for it (as with college students whose parents agree to pay for any computer their child chooses) then you will get a good computer, but not necessarily at the best price. C) If you are (like the parents in this scenario) buying for someone else, you are most concerned about the effect on your bank account, not the quality. So, if you actually communicate with your child, you may encourage them to shop carefully, or set a price cap. D) If you are buying a computer for someone else, using money from someone else, you neither care very much about the price or the performance and quality of the computer. You're not going to shop around.
Governments fall into class (D), they are purchasing services they don't use with someone else's money, so they are not concerned with price or quality. This leads us to wonder, so how would a government health care plan give us high quality service at a low price when this group has the least incentive for either low prices or high quality?
Insurance companies are somewhat more difficult to classify, but essentially, once they have you as a customer and your payments become their money, they are in class (C), paying for the care of others with their money. Whatever you don't spend, they keep. Your insurance policy is similar to a parent's love for their child (although likely less generous). It is the only reason you get anything. Because an insurance policy is not as complete and generous as a parent's love, they are concerned more about profits than the quality of your service. They will not insure that you get the best service, but it will be at a reasonable price to themselves. They do have overhead costs though, so insurance companies still add extra cost to health care. Because you pay their salaries, prices will approach the highest level you are willing to pay while profits fill the gap between their costs for your care and your payments.
In summary, government is definitely not the solution and insurance companies appear as a necessary evil.
Addressing the dilemma
So how do you do it? How can you drive prices lower while improving quality (which is the banner of the President Obama's government plan)? Two things: 1) Patients should be able to pay more money to receive better procedures. This is a necessary part of any free market. 2) Reduce the role of insurance companies in providing health care. If their overhead costs are part of the problem, reduce their role. Instead of complete plans for all medical needs, we can simply create savings accounts (independently or as part of some more comprehensive insurance plan) to cover our predictable health care needs. (Wouldn't that motivate us to live more healthily if at the end of the year, we could spend whatever excess money was available in our account). For the less common yet financially devastating health problems, we can seek out providers who will insure us for only the high cost treatments. Of course, our level of coverage will be commensurate with the agreement we enter at the start, which will reflect the price we are willing to pay. You only pay for the coverage you want. That would be a good business model: pay for the coverage you want. You want maternity insurance, choose that. If you want cancer insurance including radiation, chemotherapy and options for a surgery of your choice, check the box. If you don't want coverage for treatments under $1000, then check the box and don't pay for it. In this way, you are only insured for what you want and what you can afford. You can use your own savings to cover procedures not included in your plan. You may decide to forego a new car to afford better treatment options in your insurance plan. You will make the choices. Since you will be paying directly for most routine doctor visits, you will be totally free to choose your doctor at his or her going rates. You will determine the kinds of choices you have for insured treatments when you establish your insurance plan with your insurance provider, if you choose to purchase a plan.
Conclusion
In order to minimize costs and maximize the quality of health care, you must maximize the choices of the consumer. You can only truly and permanently increase their choices as you increase their accountability. Otherwise, you will face shortages and rationing. If you want more choices in your health care, search out companies that offer flexible health care policies that give your more choices. As consumer choice increases, prices will fall and quality will improve. That will all occur naturally through the work of Adam Smith's invisible hand.
26 June 2009
Don't trust the president, White House says
Friday, June 19, 2009
"On Monday, the President ‘promised' the American people, ‘If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period.' Today, the White House told the American people that they cannot, and should not, take President Obama at his word."
"A promise that can't be taken literally is not a promise at all. Americans with private health insurance want to keep it - they literally want to keep the insurance they have - and they should be able to do so. The American people like President Obama personally, and they want to be able to trust him. But when his own White House admits that the President's rhetoric is detached from reality, the President erodes that trust."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)