Why Can't We Just Let the Free Market Fix Our Health Care System?

Often, the government promises they can fix any problem, and often politicians are elected based on these promises. However, when push comes to shove and performance is paramount they often fall on their sweet little behinds. Okay so, let me give you a case in point - let's talk about a free-market fix for our health care system here in the United States. You see, there's a very good book I just read, and one I'd like to recommend you. This is a book I do own, and I hesitate on lending it out, because this report and research is that good. The name of the book is;

"Health Care's Retail Solution - A Consumer Focused Here for the Industry," A Strategy + Business Book edited by Amy Bernstein, published by Booz Allen Hamilton Washington DC, 2008, 96 pages.

This is a very interesting book, and perfect for anyone who is seriously considering what it will take to bring costs down in our health care industry. Is there an answer, is there a solution better than ObamaCare. Indeed, it appears so, and there are eight great essays in this book covering a myriad of the challenges we face in the future, and it explains what we've been through in the past. These essays explain why we need a free-market solution, rather than a heavy government top-down solution.

These essays get into political philosophy, crony capitalism, state run capitalism, and the reality of cost controls and shortages based on socialized medicine. One of the more interesting essays is in the introduction by David G Knott PhD. Now then, I do believe you can find a copy of this book online, and download the PDF to your tablet computer to read at your leisure. You can read this book in one evening if you'd like, but I will suggest that you spend a few days, reading a couple chapters each day. Then think about how all these issues run together, and why the ObamaCare one-size-fits-all can't work.

The book also talks about the dangers to research, the runaway costs, and the future of provider payments. Much of the data which is used by the Government Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office (GAO and CBO) is less than adequate, and fails to take into consideration some of the most important computational analytics, not to mention the ever-changing demographics coupled with high unemployment, runaway debt, and a bureaucracy to boot.

While other essays out in the public and online might suggest that we should dump ObamaCare altogether, which is probably best - this book specializes in customer-focused care for the industry using a retail strategy, along with inner-city clinics, and integrated into Medicare albeit without the paperwork and bureaucracy nightmare behind it. Like I said, this is a book I do own, and is on my shelf, I would recommend it to those who are seriously considering real-world solutions for our health care challenges here the United States.

Why the Current American Does Not Work and Why It Should Be Changed

The preference for minimal government oversight and ideas of individualism are responsible for the way American health care system is structured. However, access to health insurance and health care has been a pressing issue in this nation for a long time; rated by the WHO as one of the worst among industrialized countries, the United States' health care system is too costly and fails to cover everybody. Despite president Obama's attempt to bring about change, many continue to question the effectiveness of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the concerning both costs and overall coverage. The issues regarding health care reform directly affect the feasibility of the American Dream because adequate health care and insurance are necessary to full citizen participation and it is the government's responsibility to provide access. I believe that given this nation's strong anti-statist values it will be difficult to implement a federal health care policy; therefore it is more feasible for states to create health reforms like the one in Massachusetts and ensure universal health care.

In 2007, the US health system presented many problems concerning the amount of people who were both uninsured and underinsured and the fast rise of insurance premiums causing many Americans to report debts and problems due to medical bills (Commonwealth Fund Commission, 232). The cost of American health care is inarguably one of the major setbacks of the system; it is the highest amongst those of other industrialized nations but not necessarily more effective. For instance, a case study in the town of McAllen, Texas, shows how the overuse of medicine and the "fee for service" incentives available to doctors can really drive up the cost of medicine. McAllen is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country where most doctors focus less on preventive care and more on running extra tests, services and procedures out of fear of malpractice, influenced by differences in training, or simply to make a few extra dollars. (Gawande, 340-342). Although the situation in McAllen might be an extreme example, it does not fail to explain how the "culture of money" partly affects the cost of health care system. Unlike systems such as Canada and Japan, the American government plays a minimal role in bargaining down prices or setting price standards, this lack of control allows doctors and medical institutions to often purchase the latest technology, but not the most efficient (Klein, 256). Nevertheless, doctors are not to be labeled as the villains because private insurance companies add to the problem by expending a quarter and a third of their revenues on administrative costs (Weissert and Weissert, 350).

The high number of uninsured Americans (45 million in 2007), is another disconcerting fact regarding the downfalls of the American health care system; it is unfortunate that in an industrialized nation, once considered the most powerful in the world, people are often forced to put their career dreams on hold in order to gain access to employer based insurance. This has a negative impact on the nation's economic and political development because people who could create the latest technological innovations are "locked" at Wal-marts and the likes. Low income uninsured families like Greg and Loretta, who struggle to keep their children healthy, lose all faith in the American dream and essentially become a burden for the rest of society. Some argue that good health is a personal responsibility, and yes eating a burger everyday will obviously have negative impacts on a person's health and they should be held accountable for those poor choices. Consequently, some would blame Greg and Loretta for their unfortunate condition, but the question is; how can their children be expected to become productive citizens if they lack basic health care? The American Dream encourages individualism, but individuals cannot perform to the best of their abilities if they lack the necessary tools to do so.

In 2006, the state of Massachusetts passed an "ambitious" health care reform that improved access to care and lowered the rate of uninsured working age adults; in spite of its high costs, this plan exemplifies how reforms at the state level can perhaps be easier to implement and regulate, consequently having successful results. The plan is essentially composed of three parts: expansion of the state's Medicaid progress (establishing income-related subsidies), creating new private insurance plan open to individuals, and lastly it requires that both individuals and employers participate in the health insurance system or pay a fine. Furthermore, it provides individuals with the alternative to buy from private insurers if they do not have access through an employer (Long, 321). Mixing public and private markets achieves near-universal and gives citizens options.

Two of the most important elements of this reform are the certainty of having access to coverage in the case of unexpected unemployment and not having to worry about rejection due to pre-existing conditions (Kaiser Family Foundation, 325). The economic downturn has and continues to hurt many families, many jobs are uncertain and health insurance is no longer secure, therefore by making sure citizens continue to have access to health coverage, the state of Massachusetts is essentially contributing to the overall development of the nation's economy. When people are not worried about paying astronomical medical bills, they have more time and money to spend on purchasing houses, cars, etc which ultimately results in consumerism and more profits. Lastly, the Massachusetts provides citizens with high quality care that allows them to make regular doctor visits and access specialists, tests and medications as needed (Kaiser Family Foundation, 328). This approach is similar to the preventive care practiced in countries like Great Britain; essentially it is more beneficial for both the doctor and the patient to treat any conditions before they get out of hand.

Although the Massachusetts health care reform has proved to make significant improvements, like any other reform it has its downsides which may lead people to focus on the inequities and overlook the success. For instance many Massachusetts residents believe that more education about key aspects of the health reform would help better understand how the programs work. Residents are specifically interested in income limits to qualify and how to apply for coverage (Kaiser Family Foundation, 331). It is expected that citizens have questions about newly implemented programs and that they may not understand specific medical, political or economic jargon, but this is not a major concern because education can be easily provided. On the other hand, some would argue that the high cost of this plan is indeed a significant problem which must be addressed; nevertheless Massachusetts legislators are aware of the cost and are working to stabilize the finances. Firstly, they want a new payment of method that rewards prevention and effective control of chronic disease instead of paying according to the quantity of care provided. Secondly, the commission is looking to reimburse physicians for episodes of care rather than individual visits. Health experts agree that if Massachusetts is able to implement this changes, it will be as "audacious an achievement as universal healthcare" (Sack, 334-336).

Today, the future of president Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is somewhat uncertain. Republicans want to repeal it and skeptics argue that it is not going to solve the existing problems. Although this reform promises desirable aspects like overall coverage and cost reductions, the results are solely based on projection, making it difficult to guarantee that it is going to be successful. The Massachusetts health care plan has already been implemented and proved to create significant improvement. Essentially this model presents an effective alternative for health care reform and it celebrates the values of anti-statism by allowing states to make their own decisions.

New Health Care System: A New Path

We have been discussing a completely new national medical information system set up solely in the best interest of the public and the individual that would completely change health care as we know it today. Compared to the present high levels of disease the degree and type of results we are discussing in the proposed system seem almost unreal. A major reason for such radical change is that computer technology, as applied to preventative medicine, has been effectively bypassed for the past several years. Technology is now in the position to provide for a very rapid ketch-up in that area. We will likely see dramatic advancements in preventative medicine as seen in the 70s and 80s when electronics was first applied to the health care field, primarily in machines and tools--such as cat--scans and operating tools and similar equipment.

The core of the new health care system is based on clinical laboratory science (CLS) data. CLS and its critical relationship to the biochemical makeup of the human body and the great advantages that entails, providing an ideal mechanism on which to base a health care information system. Details of CLS and the bio-chemical makeup of the human body were discussed in the article titled "Your Health Care System: Critical Technology Sidetracked". For more information directly from the professionals of this valuable relationship click on the (18) link at the end of this article.

So when one decided that a large scale health care information system based on CLS is ideal, design-wise where do you go from there? Just how could such a system be designed to fully harness all of that vital health data. How do you convert that health information into improved human health--more specifically improved levels of wellness, and decreased levels of disease? Obviously it would require the use of the computer with some form of special data processing. The system would need the capacity to evaluate human health levels in general, relate those health levels in turn to an individual's health condition, to one's personal environment, and in turn relate that data to millions of other individual's results. This would be massive amounts of data requiring supercomputers.

The system that has been designed uses a powerful national research center that works in conjunction with 50 state diagnostic computer systems which you as an individual or a patient, would have access to. You could tap into the state diagnostic system with the use of a large profile pattern of clinical laboratory test results (likely 100 separate tests from one blood sample). It would provide you an extremely extensive health analysis as well as a means of intervention at levels almost unbelievable compared to today's limitations. In fact it would be so outstanding that at first it would likely seem more like science fiction than reality.

This is a highly sophisticated medical information system intentionally designed around the sole interests of the public and the individual, not the medical industry. Because of its effectiveness in the radical reduction in disease levels and its related reduction in health care costs, it would very unlikely ever receive any support from the medical industry. In fact, for the sake of both its effectiveness and integrity, the new system would need to be legislated in existence and controlled by the public through a public commission.

An American Universal Health Care System

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world's best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though health care in America is, more expensive than any other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in a best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, " Is a universal health care plan good for America?" Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a "bad idea" that would have negative impacts on the quality of our nation's health care.

Social Engineering Medicine

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care - the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.

As an analogy - stay with me - when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average "John Doe" who uses the software (the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.

Likewise, once a universal care plan is implemented in America and its massive infrastructure is shaped, private insurance companies will slowly disappear, and as a result, eventually patients will automatically be forced to utilize the government's universal health care plan. As part of such a system, patients will be known as numbers rather than patients, because such a massive government program would provide compensation incentive based on care provided, patients would become "numbers," rather than "patients." In addition, for cost savings reasons, every bit of health information, including your own, will be analyzed, and stored by the Government. What are the consequences? If you're a senior citizen and need a knee replacement at the age of 70, the government may determine that you're to old and it's not worth the investment cost, therefore instead of surgery, you may be given medication for the rest of your life at a substantial cost savings to the government, and at a high quality of life price to you.

An American Universal Health Care System

 An American Universal Health Care System

Health Care System Needs Reform, Not a Government Takeover

Believe it or not, America boasts some of the world's best doctors, the most advanced health care system, and the most technically superior resources in the world, bar none. Those who travel globally and have gotten sick know that their first choice for treatment would be in the U.S. Though health care in America is, more expensive than any other country, many of the worlds wealthiest come to the U.S for surgical procedures and complex care, because it holds a worldwide reputation for the gold standard in health care.

To examine the complex health care issue, a small research study was conducted from randomly selected doctors in a best doctors database. We ask 50 top doctors, located in different states and who practice different specialty fields, " Is a universal health care plan good for America?" Forty-eight of these doctors essentially responded that it was a "bad idea" that would have negative impacts on the quality of our nation's health care.

Social Engineering Medicine

One of the greatest mis-conceptions some people have relied on with regard to the health care debate is that, given a universal health care system, every person in the U.S. would receive the highest quality health care - the kind our nation is renowned for and that we currently receive. However, unlike some public amenities, health care is not a collective public service like police and fire protection services, therefore the Government cannot provide the same quality of health care to everyone, because not all physicians are equally good orthopedic surgeons, internists, neurosurgeons, etc, in the same way that not all individuals in need of health care are equally good patients.

As an analogy - stay with me - when you design a software program, there are many elements that are coded on the back-end, and used to manipulate certain aspects of the software program, that your average "John Doe" who uses the software (the end user) does not understand or utilize, nor do they care about these elements. Certain aspects of the program are coded, so that when one uses that portion of the program, other elements of the program are manipulated and automatically follow the present or next command.