America has some of the best doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies in the world. The problem is that health care costs are sky-rocketing.
The plans being debated in Washington will only make matters worse. Much worse.
Despite the claims of an “open and transparent” government, Democrat leaders are meeting behind closed doors to force through their version of health care reform. No matter what your opinion of this complicated issue, we can all agree that such a momentous task as this one should not be rushed.
Perhaps the only thing more troubling than the process by which this landmark legislation is being handled is the substance within it. Almost every economist agrees that any true reform must contain costs and work to reduce spending on what is an unsustainable curve. The real debate is about how this can be done.
I believe that the proposals being debated by Congressional Democrats will do nothing to contain costs, and will only succeed in exploding our deficit further.
There are policies we can enact rather quickly, in a bipartisan way, that would help lower the costs of health care and improve access to quality care.
As is often the case, our elected leaders are ignoring some commonsense, reasonable reforms at the expense of radical and unsustainable policies that will bankrupt our children, and cripple our ability to compete in the marketplace. There are ideas that would not result in a catastrophic increase in deficit spending, and that have a track record of achieving meaningful reforms.
Competition is the keystone to open markets, which leads to increased productivity and quality, and a better standard of living. Why not allow purchasers of health insurance to compare and contrast all available plans? Currently, we are only able to purchase health care plans that are available in our respective states. Pennsylvanians can’t get a plan provided in New Jersey, even if it is more affordable and provides the ideal coverage the customer wants. The creation of state health insurance exchanges would provide consumers with the information and options they deserve to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones, and to purchase plans available across state lines.
True health care reform must include tort reform as well. It is clear that many primary care providers practice defensive medicine for no other reason than the fear of litigation. This is an unacceptable waste of resources and care. It is time that we encourage states to provide alternative means to address medical malpractice claims, such as health courts or medical expert panels.
While leaders in Washington are looking at ways to create a new, trillion dollar entitlement program, it would be far wiser to allow Americans more freedom to use their hard-earned money that they have set aside for health care costs. Many individuals and families invest in Health Savings Accounts, which allow for tax-free contributions that can be used for qualified medical expenses. Why not allow these individuals and families to use these successful investment vehicles to pay for health insurance premiums, and without penalties? This would empower individuals to take more responsibility and ownership over their health care, and make all of us customers, not merely policy-holders.
I believe if the Pelosi-Reid health care bill is passed, we are marching down a dangerous path that will be very difficult to turn back from: a growing national bureaucracy that will eat-up billions of dollars, and will still leave countless Americans without access to the best health care in the world. Everyone agrees that we need reforms, but we cannot bankrupt future generations and ignore solutions that work.
We don’t need polls to tell us that Americans are not happy with Congress’ agenda. Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts was a clear signal that Congressional leaders better change the focus of their policies.
Let’s hope Congressional Democrats can hear this message behind those closed doors.
This a very clear and concise video, i mean it makes perfect sense. Funny how powerful common sense is yet most ignore it
Allowing interstate competition would reduce costs because insurers could offer plans from states with the weakest consumer regulations. That would reduce both the cost and quality of health care plans in lockstep without affecting the cost of the underlying medical services – people would just have to tap into their own reserves to pay the difference.
Tort reform is a good idea, but would probably have a very small impact on health care costs. Most credible sources put it in the 1-3% range.
HSAs are good for certain people, but they are unpopular and even if they were crafted as well as possible, few people would choose to lock up money in advance to be used exclusively on medical expenses. Anyway, they don't provide support for catastrophic care, which is what insurance is meant to solve.
Your suggestions are fine, but they don't come close to addressing the whole problem. This plan won't affect the abuse of the emergency room system by people who choose not to have their own health insurance. It won't affect people with pre-existing conditions, people who are bankrupted after they hit their plan's maximum lifetime payout, or people who get kicked off of a plan when they are sick.
I look forward to seeing your plan cover free-riders, high-risk individuals and the bankruptcies that come from catastrophic illnesses.
The "credible sources" estimate of tort reform of 1-3% savings is so low because it doesn't pick up the savings from medical providers backing off the practice of defensive medicine due to their fear of frivolous and ruinous lawsuits. Steve's three suggestions for cost savings should be taken seriously and not dismissed because they don't address other medical insurance issues. His strategy of attacking the critical issue of cost containment first makes a lot of sense, even if it doesn't have a lot of short term political appeal.The hyperbolic trajectory of medical costs in this country is one of the most important job growth issues of this decade.
Exactly right! Increase competition, tort reform, and expanding healthcare savings accounts will do more for expanding coverage than any socialist plan currently being considered by Congress.
It is a fact that the most effective way to control costs AND spend the least amount of money is to lump everyone into the same policy. Spread the risk over the entire population. I find it difficult to understand what is so hard for people to comprehend this.
Single-payer. Of course the political environment will not allow this to happen. And the right will scream about government run healthcare. The left doesn't have the balls. How about doing something different and basing your entire argument on facts??? But to think that a for-profit insurance industry is the right way to makes no sense.
So lets spread the risk over many many different companies (competition). Huh?? Tort reform is a good thing – but 1-3% is kinda high in projected savings according to MOST estimates.
Sure, lets make sure the middle class has that money put away for healthcare, but making it easier for them to spend their pretax dollars on healthcare?
I think it is admirable that you are running for public service. But you need to learn more about this debate before I would consider you a real fiscal conservative. I would definitely vote for someone on the right that had the balls to present the MOST cost effective measure out there – spread the risk over the entire population. Single-payer.