Thursday, September 24, 2009

Whither the Crisis? - Part 2 of a series on Health Care Reform

We are continually being told that we have a "health care crisis". According to President Obama, in his latest address to the joint session of Congress, the health care system is "at the breaking point." So, we need to ask ourselves if we really do have a crisis and, if so, what, exactly, is the crisis?

A crisis is a situation that requires immediate action in order to avoid catastrophe. We have seen the results, with this administration and the last, of a crisis-oriented administration. As President Obama's Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel, famously said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." And this administration certainly hasn't. We have seen an $800 billion dollar "stimulus bill", rushed through Congress and passed before anyone had a chance to read it to respond to the "economic crisis." We saw the government take-over of 2/3 of our domestic auto industry in response to an auto industry crisis. The House of Representatives passed the Cap and Trade Bill before it was finished being written - a bill that, if it passes the Senate, will constitute the largest tax hike on the middle and lower classes in history, in response to the "global warming crisis." Taxes are being levied on sugary juice and sodas in response to the "obesity crisis." A crisis is a very convenient circumstance to rush a bill through Congress without giving the public watchdogs or even the Congress Critters time to analyze the fine print of the legislation and also gives convenient cover to spend a lot of money in order to avert the imminent catastrophe. President Jimmy Carter once said, ""When a president has authority to act unilaterally (as in a crisis), his leadership can be exerted. Otherwise, compromise, delay and confusion are more likely." In fact, when Carter was presented an "energy crisis", he declared fighting it, "The moral equivalent of war."

That is not to say that there are no real crises, but when the government attempts to rush a huge, expensive bill through Congress on the basis of a crisis, our antennae should go up and we need to be sure there actually is a crisis and that what we are doing is necessary to avert that crisis. We've all seen shoot-outs on Main Street in old Western movies. In the movies, the quickest draw always won. In real life, it wasn't like that. A quick draw and shoot with a pistol is wildly inaccurate. The real winner was usually the gunslinger that took time to aim and make sure he was going to hit his target. The trouble with much of our crisis legislation is that we don't take time to aim. We spray our shots wildly, thus wasting valuable ammunition and usually getting ourselves shot, anyway.

So, is the crisis in health care one of quality? You might think so, given some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington. We hear that we spend more on our health care than any other nation, but get less for it. I've debunked this notion in my previous essay, First, Do No Harm, posted on Sept. 12, 2009. We actually have the best health care system in the world and our numbers prove it. I'm not going to reiterate my arguments here, if you haven't yet, read my previous essay.

Another reason for the "crisis" that we hear is that there are a large number of people who have no access to medical care because they cannot get insurance. The original number we heard bandied around was 47 million Americans (out of approximately 304 million), or about 15% of the population. In the most recent speech to the joint session of Congress, President Obama revised that number down to 30 million, since 17 million of those in the higher number were illegal aliens. 30 million is still a substantial number of people uninsured, but is that the whole story? No. Actually, according to the US Census bureau, more than 9 million make more than $75,000/yr. and could afford at least catastrophic health care insurance, if they choose. Many of these people are young, single people who eschew health insurance because they are healthy and would rather spend the money on flat-screen TVs and iPods. Another 14 million people are fully eligible for government programs like SCHIP or Medicaid, but are not signed up. In fact, of the children who are uninsured, over 70% are eligible for SCHIP, Medicaid, or both. That leaves 7 million Americans, or approximately 2% who are chronically uninsured. Now, without a doubt, for those individuals and families, being uninsured is a crisis, but should we restructure the entire US health care system for 2% of our population, especially when 85% of Americans say that they are happy with their health care insurance? Are there other, and better, ways to cover these uninsured people? I argue that there are and I will discuss this topic in upcoming essays.

The third common reason we hear for the "crisis" is that health care costs are rising too rapidly and they have become a burden on our economy. Certainly, health care costs have risen far faster than the general economy over the last couple of decades. They've risen almost as fast as the advances in medicine have. There are a number of reasons for this and I'll address this issue in another essay. According to President Obama, the rising cost of health care depresses the economy of the country and the individual economies of our citizens. In his State of the Union address, President Obama claimed that a bankruptcy occurred every 30 seconds. That is false. There is not even a bankruptcy every 30 seconds in the US, let alone one caused by high medical care costs. In actuality, while people who go bankrupt often have unpaid medical bills, few people (<1%,>because of medical expenses. Almost all hospitals and physicians will allow patients to pay on an installment basis and will not contact credit bureaus if the patient is making regular payments. As Thomas Sowell says, “In a country where everything imaginable is bought and paid for on credit, why is it suddenly a national crisis if some people cannot pay cash up front for medical treatment?”

So, is there a crisis in our health care system? Do we really need to rush a bill through Congress in order to avert an imminent disaster, or do we have time to rationally study and discuss and debate these issues? There is no doubt that health care is expensive, though we cannot expect Mercedes health care for the price of a Yugo. But there are many free-market solutions that do not involve a government that has an unbroken history of bringing in programs at higher cost and more inefficiently than anticipated.

In actuality, there is no more of a crisis now than there was a year or two or three ago. The only crisis for those who are trying to rush this through is that the American people may get wind of what is in the bill. I addressed this in my essay, Honest Barack’s Used Car Lot (posted Aug. 25, 2009.) The situation is too important to be rushed through or relegated to government control.

In my first health care essay, I used the oft-cited medical phrase, Primum non nocere – First, do no harm. We must keep that in mind as we discuss health care reform.

3 comments:

  1. Jeff, as you have stated and acknowledge, there are differences in health care. The difference you say is between a Mercedes and a Yugo. I acknowledge that in reality, if I cannot afford a Mercedes(car) I should be happy with a Yugo(car). But when it comes to healthcare, I disagree that money be the only factore between what constitutes good healthcare(Mercedes) and what someone who is getting that good care considers acceptable healthcare(Yugo). I fully am not ignorant to the procedures that can constitute good and poor healthcare, but I am against a politician or someone whom claims to be in a better class than me what is acceptable for the treatment of some simple and complex conditions. Can you please expand your thinking here. Ferron - Grand Rapids, MI

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ferron -
    What I meant was simply that the United States has the world's best health care. That is going to be more expensive than countries without the quality of health care we have. For instance, when someone complains that the British or Canadians have cheaper health care, they need to also realize that their health care system is also of lower quality.

    That being said, I think health care in the US is too expensive, but unless we want quality or accessibility to suffer, we can't expect to not pay something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, I agree with that statement whole heartedly. I also think that we need to look more closely at what we are doing now and find ways in which to fix what we have rather than throw it all away and "try" something new that has never been done before.

    Ferron, Grand Rapids, MI

    ReplyDelete

I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason. As long as you are polite, I have no problem with your opinion.