Refuting Universal Care

One of the stories that I read while in the hospital that I wanted to post on was this one (HT Ed at HA). While I don't disagree that health care reform is necessary, I do disagree that the government taking over this industry is a disaster of epic proportion. I have shown multiple examples of how government run health care has killed people, but this is probably the most detailed point by point refutation of the idea that I have seen.

Here are the author's Top 10 arguments against the reasons for ObamaCare.

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries
2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford
3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings
4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs
5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High
6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes
7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy
8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary
9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs
10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes

Here are a couple of Kessler's arguments against ObamaCare.

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries: Those pushing for government-run health care are fond of comparing the US unfavorably to other developed countries with heavier government-run or directed systems. Actually, the US is more successful on comparative costs, efficiency of resource use, and outcome.

Typical of misleading statistics, a US advocate of government-run health care touts a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), comprised of the 30 most developed economies, favoring universal coverage as exists in most of the other OECD countries. The OECD report is actually titled a “working paper” by the three researchers. The encyclopedia defines a “working paper” as “a document created as a basis for discussion rather than as an authoritative text.” This OECD “working paper’s” statistics are misleading.

More accurately, a January 2009 analysis of the data gathered from the OECD points at life expectancy as the single best measure of outcomes. Excluding deaths by injury, to focus on health related outcome, “the US does the best of all the OECD countries” having the longest life expectancy.

2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford: As it has become more evidenced that the US does not compare unfavorably, the push for heavier government involvement has shifted toward saying we can’t afford the current and future costs. The affordability claim is exaggerated. We can afford more than previously, have chosen to, and benefited.

Our ability has greatly increased to pay for and enjoy a higher standard of living, allowing a shift in priorities. From 1901 to 2003, the percentage of personal expenditures on the necessities of food, clothing and housing declined by half from 79.8% to 50.1%, while the quality and amount has increased. Home ownership increased from 19.1% to 67%. Other personal discretionary spending was able to increase from 20.2% to 49.9%, including all the modern conveniences and pleasures. Voluntary sharing of the bounty has also increased as the percent given to charities has doubled. Personal spending for health care increased from about 2% to almost 5%. Although some may be pressed to spend on health care, the overwhelming majority can and do.

3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings: Price Waterhouse analyzed the primary cost drivers in health care. Leading the pack are new technologies, public demand for broader coverage and access, and defensive medicine. ObamaCare is not proposing restraints on lawsuits, tort lawyers being a major constituency. Health care consumers’ demands for fast access to the latest and best is not contradicted.

The Lewin Group is the leading consultants to government and private groups on health plan costs. Lewin says the two closest Congressional proposals to Obama’s stated design, from Senator Baucus and from Senators Wyden and Bennett, would increase National Health Expenditures, while dramatically increasing employer costs. It is reported that Senator Baucus is expected to be the “architect” of the emerging detailed plan, and the Wyden-Bennett proposal enjoys major support, the Obama administration saying it will hand off detailing to Congress.

7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy: President Obama publicly claimed last week that “The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds." ABC News Director of Polling examined that claim and found it “simply unsupportable.” Examination of the basis for Obama’s claim and of other studies found the numbers vastly overstated.

8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary: That about 16% in the US are uninsured is repeated as cause for universal coverage schemes to cover them that at the same time grossly changes the health care system and costs affecting the other 84%. Even if the other 84% were not negatively affected, the uninsured count is actually an overblown statistic.The definition of uninsured includes all those lacking coverage any time in a year. Those lacking coverage for more than a year is 11%. The long term uninsured is primarily among working-age adults with low education.The Kaiser Foundation offers a recent analysis of the uninsured. 19% can afford coverage but don’t purchase it. 25% are eligible for current programs but don’t enroll. That leaves 56% for whom affordability is considered too difficult, needing assistance. About 5 million, over 10%, of the uninsured are illegal immigrants, who tend to have low educations. About 19% of those needing assistance are illegal immigrants.

Now I am not going to delve into the final sentence there - that is another post for another day, but suffice it to say that the illegal immigrants here who do not have health care mostly likely WOULD have health care back in their home countries....if they were there.....

However, the entire last paragraph is one that bears further scrutiny. 11% of the American poplution is uninsured and of that 11%, 44% have health care available to them they just don't bother to get it for whatever reason. Add in the 19% who are illegal immigrants and the number of American citizens who can not afford health care is really down to about half of what the advocates of universal health care say it is.

It is not that I don't have compassion for the 5% to 8% (depending on whose numbers you use) American citizens who need help obtaining health care. However, the government taking over this large portion of the economy will not do the job nearly as well as private charity will. Most hospitals have a portion of their budgets written with a buffer built in for people who can not pay (thanks to the Logical Mother who has been in Nursing and Hospital Administration for her entire adult life for that information). Government could (for example) encourage larger assistance of the vulnerable by offering tax breaks to doctors and hospitals who do a portion of their practice on patients who do not have health care. Pharmaceutical companies are actually offering their products for free or a greatly reduced price for those who can not afford them. The private sector is trying to help out.....encourage them to do even more. Businesses are in business to make money - encourage them to do the right thing by making it financially beneficial to the shareholders to do so. It's really that simple.

If you think that 5% to 8% is bad now, wait until the government takes over and the old and infirm are denied services because they are "too expensive". As I have shown repeatedly, rationing of services is already happening in Canada and Great Britain and every other country that has government run health care. That is not compassionate - if you or I were to do that, we would be charged with elder neglect and thrown in jail!

Rather than setting ourselves up for rationing of services, let's talk about a real way to encourage the private sector to take care of the 5% to 8% who are really in need of help. The rest of us out there need to step up to our personal responsibility of making sure that we avail ourselves to the health care that is there for us. Oh sure - it would be splendid to eventually see health care portability, but the most important issue right now are those who need assistance most.