I know people are wrapped around the axle about healthcare reform, and pegging things to pre-existing conditions, greedy insurance companies, etc. We can fix a multitude of problems in 2 very simple steps, both of which were created by congress and can simply be removed.
Step one, remove legislation that forces insurance to be a state by state endeavor. This creates excessive regulation, overinflated structures for the companies, and creates wildly different pricing schemes based on the coverage states mandate.
Step two is another simple step. Stop providing tax incentives to employers to provide benefits. This would in turn stop having companies provide benefits to employees, meaning that we would buy health coverage like we do homeowners, car, and life insurance, with our own money. This closes a tax exemption, allows employers to focus more on their core business, and put more money in the pockets of their employees to purchase plans appropriate for them and their families. As people tend to move jobs more frequently now, this removal of employer fed coverage would intrinsically help the pre-existing condition debacle, as you would be covered by a plan once you buy, and take it with you wherever you go.
The great thing about both of these concepts with healthcare is they cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of transfer payments to government. Repealing the cross state law may actually lower taxes and the state level, as we can reduce or eliminate insurance commissioners. Removing the employer incentive would have issues more for the individual, as it would mean more income in our pockets, and may alter the balance sheets because in concert with step one, would actually drive down healthcare costs, meaning more income for the business. This could also serve to reduce some federal sizing, for those responsible for checking in on businesses with regards to their healthcare coverage.
Finally, if we move more of the market to an individually driven model, it helps with people who work as independent contractors, and would inevitably drive the insurance companies to provide new and innovative options in response to the changing market dynamics (you know, how the real free market is to operate under normal conditions). So, it begs the question, why didn't we start there? Why did we try a big bang that is clearly hurting taxpayers, consumers, and employees? Simple solutions tend to work better, and they tend to obfuscate the truth much less than do complex solutions.
While these are two great answers to help drive down "insurance costs", they do little to nothing to drive down the rising cost of research, development, and mass production of pharmaceuticals and new medical equipment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm glad to see that someone is thinking "outside of the box".
Slammin, you make a good point. Drug development is an extremely expensive proposition. It costs pharmaceuticals hundreds of millions, and sometimes a billion to bring a drug to market. Anyone want to guess what a bunch of that money goes to? If you guessed government and arduous FDA regulations and paperwork, you would be absolutely correct. A lot of money goes to researching drugs that never see the light of day, and the companies researching these technologies and medications need to recoup that money.
ReplyDeleteIt is a problem that needs to be addressed, and can be done by streamlining, and eventually eliminating the FDA. I am a firm believer that if we pull the government out of that process, we'll drive down costs. Free up the market, we'll have more innovative therapies, and I posit a much better success rate with the therapies (translation, less of the drug problems we have now).
If we're going to remove the FDA, then I think we should go whole hog and legalize all medicines without prescriptions. Medicines acquired without a prescription that have potential to be dangerous to the general public should be considered recreational and subject to age and responsibility restrictions. Heavy state taxes should be enacted on highly abused substances. All medications, prescription or recreational, should include an educational fact sheet about side effects and long term usage (as you would receive with prescription drugs). Law breakers should be subject to appropriate fines and/or jail time.
ReplyDeleteThink of all the highly knowledgeable pharmaceutical positions that would suddenly open up. Think of all the money wasted on the drug war that could be revenue. Think of the savings of the elimination of the FDA. Think of the money flow for research and development of new pharmaceuticals.
Yes, substance bars will appear. Yes, some people with drug habits would get worse. Yes, people would have to take responsibility for their actions.
Drug and medical research is expensive and risky to an investor. So, if the free market is going to actually drive costs of drugs, then you must make it truly 'free' for it to work.
Education is the biggest anti-drug. I truly believe if people received a fact sheet with every purchase of their recreational drugs, eventually, they would read it and think, "yeah.. I feel like that now... what are the long term effects? Oh! Crap!"