In the United States, we spend a lot more money, per capita, on health care than any other country on Earth. Given the widespread belief that Americans enjoy “the best health care in the world,” the actual results, as those are conventionally measured, are pretty mediocre. (See the results of a Congressional Research Service study of health care spending in some thirty OECD countries here.)
And so, about one year ago, we elected a new president who promised change on this and many other public policy fronts. It now appears likely that sometime during the next few weeks both houses of Congress will approve—along overwhelmingly partisan lines—a bill that will allow President Obama to declare victory in the battle to “bend the curve” of skyrocketing health care costs.
I must confess that I am starting to be, as Mark Twain liked to say, harassed by doubts about all this. And I am not alone. A story on page A6 of the December 16 issue of the Washington Post reports that a majority of Americans (51%) say that they “oppose the proposed changes to the health-care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration.” Fully 66% say that they believe passage of the bill will increase the federal budget deficit.
And so, about one year ago, we elected a new president who promised change on this and many other public policy fronts. It now appears likely that sometime during the next few weeks both houses of Congress will approve—along overwhelmingly partisan lines—a bill that will allow President Obama to declare victory in the battle to “bend the curve” of skyrocketing health care costs.
I must confess that I am starting to be, as Mark Twain liked to say, harassed by doubts about all this. And I am not alone. A story on page A6 of the December 16 issue of the Washington Post reports that a majority of Americans (51%) say that they “oppose the proposed changes to the health-care system being developed by Congress and the Obama administration.” Fully 66% say that they believe passage of the bill will increase the federal budget deficit.
But Democratic leaders in Congress appear undaunted, even by nay-saying on the part of the former head of the Democratic National Committee, Dr. Howard Dean, who argues that the Senate bill would “do more harm than good.” Dean urges defeat of the pending legislation on the grounds that it is “an insurance company’s dream.”
Evidently, the bill also is a pharmaceutical company’s dream. According to Dana Milbank, the industry is adamant in its insistence that Americans continue “to pay up to 10 times the prices Canadians and Europeans pay for identical medication, often produced in the same facilities by the same manufacturers.”
This is one of those times (there are many) when I’m glad that Washington Buckeyes have not been allotted a seat in the United States Senate. I don’t think I could hold my nose and vote for this bill. On the other hand, I can’t imagine voting to kill the bill along with Howard Dean and all the Senate Republicans, who seem to like the status quo in U.S. health care spending. Is a puzzlement.
The most thoughtful critique I have seen from the contrary-minded is that of Charles Krauthammer, who is not a conventional Republican, at least on domestic issues. Krauthammer proposes a tripartite approach to real reform: (1) overhaul U.S. tort law, (2) allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines, and (3) tax employer-provided health insurance. Pursuing this approach would make a lot of people unhappy, including (1) trial lawyers, (2), the insurance industry, (3) everyone who pays insurance premiums. In addition, abandoning all the present bills and starting from scratch would take time.
On the other hand, it would leave the best parts of the existing system—Medicare, for example—alone. And Krauthammer’s sausages could be produced one at a time, linked by experience.
Evidently, the bill also is a pharmaceutical company’s dream. According to Dana Milbank, the industry is adamant in its insistence that Americans continue “to pay up to 10 times the prices Canadians and Europeans pay for identical medication, often produced in the same facilities by the same manufacturers.”
This is one of those times (there are many) when I’m glad that Washington Buckeyes have not been allotted a seat in the United States Senate. I don’t think I could hold my nose and vote for this bill. On the other hand, I can’t imagine voting to kill the bill along with Howard Dean and all the Senate Republicans, who seem to like the status quo in U.S. health care spending. Is a puzzlement.
The most thoughtful critique I have seen from the contrary-minded is that of Charles Krauthammer, who is not a conventional Republican, at least on domestic issues. Krauthammer proposes a tripartite approach to real reform: (1) overhaul U.S. tort law, (2) allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines, and (3) tax employer-provided health insurance. Pursuing this approach would make a lot of people unhappy, including (1) trial lawyers, (2), the insurance industry, (3) everyone who pays insurance premiums. In addition, abandoning all the present bills and starting from scratch would take time.
On the other hand, it would leave the best parts of the existing system—Medicare, for example—alone. And Krauthammer’s sausages could be produced one at a time, linked by experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment