Tackling the Cost of Healthcare Reform

In the healthcare debate, everyone seems to agree, at least at a lukewarm level, that universal healthcare is a good thing. While I find the term “socialism” to be an absolute misnomer when applied to a government-backed group package for the uninsured (because strictly speaking it’s only an alternative insurance policy, not a complete takeover of the entire health system), universal coverage will be insanely expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimates $1 trillion. Where will we find the funds?

In both the California budget and the healthcare debate, something’s got to give. We cannot have the programs without the funds, at least not without overleveraging like irresponsible hedgefund managers. Either taxes must go up, or benefits must come down.

In the healthcare debate, an industry-supported initiative proposes measures to reduce the growth of costs. Apparently not the costs, but the growth of costs:

“The savings would come from standardizing and simplifying all sectors of the health care system; implementing measures to reduce overuse and underuse of health care; investing in effective treatment and prevention; and reducing costs by developing technology and regulatory reforms.” Certainly money will be saved by offering increased preventative care and increasing efficiencies. But it won’t begin to cover the costs of universal healthcare.

So what would?

We could save huge amounts of money and increase coverage by rationing healthcare services to remain within a targeted budget. Translation: maybe terminal cancer patients would be offered fewer options near end-of-life so that more prenatal care could be offered. Would this be devastating? Yes, sometimes it would. But we need to leave behind a mindset that we’re entitled to every ounce of care available when it’s a government administered program. There would still be two tiers: those who could afford to pay privately for extreme measures and those who couldn’t. At least basic healthcare could be had by all.

The Wall Street Journal ran a Democrat-bashing opinion piece entitled How Washington Rations – ObamaCare omen: a case-study in ‘cost-control’. The article argues against a government-funded insurance program by detailing a long description of a “virtual” colonoscopy procedure (a CT scan) which will no longer be covered under Medicare. In an effort to contain costs, Medicare has stopped covering the scanning procedure, though the more invasive traditional colonoscopy is still covered. According to the author, “This is precisely the sort of complexity that the Democrats would prefer to ignore as they try to restructure health care. Led by budget chief Peter Orszag, the White House believes that comparative effectiveness research, which examines clinical evidence to determine what “works best,” will let them cut wasteful or ineffective treatments and thus contain health spending.” Precisely. And everyone will have to stop whining about getting “less than the best.” Unless you’d like to pay for it yourself. Insurance companies, public or private, are not under any obligation to provide services that cost too much for their business plans.

You know what else could cover the costs of universal healthcare for US citizens? Reducing military expenditures ($700 billion per year) and aid to foreign countries (another $34 billion per year). We give billions in aid to Israel (or Pakistan or Albania or Russia) or build more fighter jets ($300 billion) while Americans in poverty go without basic healthcare benefits. Will Obama and the Democratic congress reduce the military budget to reduce the deficits? That remains to be seen. If we are to become a country that spends within its means, we’d better.

Possibly Related Posts:

  • Share/Bookmark
June 11, 2009 | Filed Under Sustainable Economy 

Comments

One Response to “Tackling the Cost of Healthcare Reform”

  1. Merry Lake on June 15th, 2009 3:10 am

    I wonder if Washington is thinking along these lines? Doubt it -

Leave a Reply