Nothing irritates conservatives more than when Michael Moore
refers to free healthcare. Obviously, it is not free, and the distraction only
fuels the anti-liberal attacks that Moore takes on. Unfortunately, the
political attacks don't allow us to get down to the costs and a comprehensive
cost benefit analysis comparing today's health "system" and a
proposed national health care plan.
Nothing represents more clearly our insistence on free market
principles and competition than the way healthcare is delivered today. This is
evident in every political debate for both parties. The Republicans bash
"government run healthcare", even though their party passed the
Medicare bill in 2003.
Stylios Trachanas says the Democrats are proposing mixed models, trying to preserve the godlike free market and profiteering of the major players involved. While Medicare provides medical benefits for a dramatically growing population that is aging and living longer, the rest of the working folks pretty much need to rely on their employers for health coverage. But the number of people privately insured is not as big as you think. In fact, about 60% of healthcare is publicly funded.
Stylios Trachanas says the Democrats are proposing mixed models, trying to preserve the godlike free market and profiteering of the major players involved. While Medicare provides medical benefits for a dramatically growing population that is aging and living longer, the rest of the working folks pretty much need to rely on their employers for health coverage. But the number of people privately insured is not as big as you think. In fact, about 60% of healthcare is publicly funded.
It has been stated often that the barriers to changing our
health delivery system are political, and many have advocated an
"incremental" approach. But after about 20 years of social/economic
experiments within the free market, it's hard to imagine that anything else can
be tried. The upward trend of costs continues unabated. Health costs rose 7.2%
in 2004 and another 6.9% in 2005. The 6.9% figure is being heralded as a
success, since it was the smallest increase since 1999. The 2006 data is at an
increase of 6.1 percent, a pace that was maintained in 2007. The health share
of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006-2007 before
resuming its historical upward trend. Experts predict that healthcare spending
will reach 19.6 percent of GDP by 2016. The nation spent almost $2 trillion
dollars on medical care in 2005. This accounts for about 16% of all spending.
Average cost per person varies by report, but is now close to a staggering
figure of around $6,700. All of this with 45 plus million still uninsured.
Stylios Trachanas Health advocates have stated the
obvious for years. The amount of waste in the U.S. in healthcare paperwork and
bureaucracy costs more in dollars than it would take to provide health coverage
for all of the 40 million plus who are uninsured. In other words, pure admin
overload, if eliminated, could save enough money to solve the problem of the
uninsured. Within the 60-40 public/private split of U.S. healthcare funding,
what you hear most about is the misconception that the private sector is more
efficient than the public sector. For years, the public Medicare system has had
administrative costs of around 3%. More than 96 cents of each dollar is spent
on direct care for Medicare recipients. Private sector admin estimates are
around 15%. Most Americans would never accept the argument that the federal
government is more efficient than the private sector in delivering healthcare.
High health costs in an employer based system are killing our
economy. In fact, employer sponsored healthcare is a huge federal tax break. If
employees had to claim their employee healthcare "benefits" as
income, it is estimated they would be paying about $126 billion dollars in
federal income tax. In other words, private sector employer sponsored
healthcare is really part of a government backed health system. A National
Healthcare Plan, by spreading out the costs to everyone, would take the monkey
off an employer's back.