By Paul Lazaro
Opinions Editor, ‘11

It’s clear to anyone who follows politics that health care reform is this summer’s hot button issue. It is the current college student who stands to lose if government becomes more involved in our health care system. We are the ones who will likely have to pay off the debt any legislation will bring about, and many of us will likely be forced into any public option proposed.
I contend that while health care reform is necessary, it should have less to do with government acting as a catalyst towards reform and more to do with consumer choice. In order to really convey my message it is important first to dismiss the notion that health care mandated by the government is a good idea in the first place.
The greatest fallacy presented by proponents of state run medicine is the statistic that there are 46 million Americans uninsured, because it is not affordable to them. However, a recent report published by Johns Hopkins University illuminates that of the 46 million uninsured, 38% of them, have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. In addition, 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are all people who could easily afford coverage. Moreover, of the 46 million uninsured 20% percent are uninsured for only a couple of months out of the year. Factoring these statistics, and recognizing that 1/3 of the Americans r Continued on the following page.
Continued from the previous page. ecognized as uninsured, are not even American citizens but illegal immigrants, cuts the daunting number of 47 million uninsured nearly in half.
The next great fallacy presented by those who favor state run medicine is the perception that our health care system is worse off than industrialized nations with single payer systems. Proponents of socialized medicine stress that according to the World Health Organization, the average Americans life expectancy is less than that of citizens of nations with single payer systems. Unfortunately, correlation does not imply causation. While life expectancy is higher in some single payer systems, it does not mean that it’s a result of a superior health care system. We might be less likely to live longer in the United States because we are 10 times more likely to kill each other through violent acts, or because more of us in America look like the Michelin man from obesity. However, these facts do not address the crux of the pro-government reform argument.
The main contention by pro-government reformers is that in single payer systems people have equal access to health care. While this broad statement is true, it fails to recognize that in single payer systems health care is equally bad. According to the most recent data compiled by the Frasier Institute, the United States outscores single payer countries on many key indicators of available health care resources, including number of MRI units per million population, the number of MRI exams per million population, and the number of CT Scanners per million population. The fact lies in basic economics. In a single payer system someone is always sick, meaning demand is always infinitely high, while the supply of doctors and resources is finite. What does it mean to the average citizen? Well for the average citizen of Great Britain it means very long lines. For example, the average time it takes to see a specialist in Great Britain is 26 weeks!
The last pro-government reform argument is the idea that through a new government plan similar to a bill proposed in the House of Representatives, people will have the ability to choose to keep their current plan over whatever public option is proposed. This fallacy stands in direct contradiction to all data, including a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office. The report by the CBO states that an estimated 23 million insured people will be forced from their current private plans onto a state run plan if the legislation proposed by the House becomes law.
Overall, government run health insurance will keep people from getting the care they deserve. More importantly it means millions of Americans will be forced into receiving health care from a government that is unable to run a simple Cash for Clunkers program or effectively service the lines at the DMV. This however does not mean that our current system is without its flaws. If anything, our current system may only be a small percentage better than any current proposed legislation. Today, our current system is rampant with corruption and fails to provide people with adequate care. However, the solution to our health care problem does not lie in mere government oversight, but in government deregulation.
“What we have today is corporate run medicine, where large corporations stand between the doctor-patient relationship.” Such were the words of gynecologist Dr. Ron Paul a Libertarian leaning Republican congressmen from Texas. According to Dr. Paul the insurance companies we have today are a product of legislation signed into law by President Richard Nixon. The legislation mandated by the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, requires that companies with 25 employees or more subscribe to Health Maintenance Organization’s AKA big insurance companies. In addition to this law, the federal government currently provides large tax breaks to HMO’s and employers, giving way to an unfair advantage to large corporations over the doctor patient relationship.
One of the most effective ways to lower costs would be to change our perspective on how insurance works altogether. Today, because people with insurance don’t care what procedures cost, doctors raise prices in order to receive a higher reimbursement from the insured patients insurance company. In turn, the uninsured are hit with huge bills, while the insured get off easy, being that their insurance is covering most of the expenses regarding their treatment REGARDLESS OF THE COST. When was the last time an insured person asked his or her doctor at a routine checkup how much their visit cost? However, if people only received insurance for catastrophic incidents, and everyday treatment was paid out of pocket, through competition the health care prices we have today would fall dramatically.
Take plastic surgery and Lasik procedures as an example. Because these two procedures are not covered by insurance, prices have drastically fallen because the doctors who provide these treatments must compete and provide better services at a more affordable prices. In other words, there is no incentive for plastic surgeons to overcharge patients because they are not reimbursed by insurance companies, but receiving direct payment. If the government abolished the Health Maintenance Act it would eliminate mandated care for companies, and in turn force large insurance companies into competition with doctors, a war they would surly lose.
Another reason why health care costs are so high is due to a limited supply of caregivers. If the government made it easier for doctors to hire physician assistants, prices would be significantly lowered. As it stands today in most states, if a physician brings on an assistant he or she is responsible for any treatment the physician’s assistant recommends. This makes it risky for doctors to hire assistants because the malpractice insurance they pay increases with every physician’s assistant they take on. If physicians were able to hire assistants who themselves would be liable for any actions they committed, there would be a direct increase in the supply of care givers, in turn lowering the demand for doctors and costs for the consumer.
While a nationalized system seems to provide a quick fix to our ailing health care system, it only complicates a bureaucratic nightmare and disrupts the doctor patient relationship. While our current system is fairing better than nationalized programs across the world, it’s not by much. Therefore, in order to lower costs for the consumer it is apparent that we must void frivolous regulations and allow the health care system to benefit from the free market. While more choice in regard to your own life may seem scary, it certainly beats dying in the cue of nationalized health care.
Send comments to plazaro@spc.edu.