Health care reform!

[Geolibertarian]

Since nearly 50 million Americans are without health insurance, since health care costs continue to skyrocket despite decades-old promises by establishment politicians to bring these costs under control, and since there are literally tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare alone, I thought I'd share my thoughts on how best to fix this mess.

In my view, our health care system should be based primarily on free enterprise and only secondarily on tax-funded medical research.

The reason I'm mostly against any sort of government involvement in health care is that I'm convinced that government involvement is the very thing that utterly screwed up and corrupted our health care system in the first place.

This involvement manifests in at least three basic ways:

First, the supply of medicine is artificially restricted by

(a) the criminalization of alternative medicine in general and medical marijuana in particular; and

(b) a corrupt patenting system that allows Big Pharma to charge monopoly prices for non-innovative "me-too" drugs and for drugs developed primarily at taxpayer expense.

Second, the supply of both health care providers and insurance providers is artificially restricted by occupational licensing barriers, which have far less to do with protecting the public from fraud than they do with protecting politically-connected interest groups from competition.

Third, the demand for health care services is artificially inflated by excessive taxpayer subsidization.


It is for those reasons that I advocate the following three-pronged approach to health care reform:


First, increase the availability of low-cost medicine by (1) revoking all patents awarded to the pharmaceutical cartel for either "me-too" drugs or drugs developed chiefly at government expense, and (2) relegalizing alternative medicine (including medical marijuana). The resultant increase in supply will exert a tremendous downward pressure on prices.

Second, reform medical licensing laws so that only those health care practitioners who accept taxpayer money are required to be state certified, and significantly lower the prohibitively high licensing barriers for private insurers as well. The resultant increase in the supply of both health care providers and insurance providers will, again, exert a downward pressure on prices.

Third, freeze the tax dollar-per-patient ratio of government health care expenditures at its current level. Thus, as more and more patients (particularly those who are able-bodied and able-minded enough to make their own choices) begin opting for the low-cost, non-subsidized alternatives made possible by the first two reforms, the amount of tax dollars needed for subsidized health care will come down gracefully on its own.

This gradual decrease in the demand for subsidized health care, combined with the aforementioned increase in the supply of low-cost alternatives, will serve to dramatically reduce the overall cost of health care. In this way, the forces of free market competition can be brought to bear on the health care system so as to maximize the speed by which health care costs can be decreased without reducing quality, and without denying health care services to those who are most in need yet least able to provide for those needs.


I call this my "progressive libertarian" approach to health care reform.  

[Kregener]

The Health Care industry would correct itself virtually overnight if the Medical Triad (FDA, AMA & Big Pharma) were disbanded and run out of the country. There is no money in cures, only ongoing treatments.

Alternative medicine has a higher cure rate anyway.

[Geolibertarian]

I call this my "progressive libertarian" approach to health care reform.  

Since most opinion polls appear to show that a majority of Americans lean more towards single-payer health insurance -- whereby the delivery of health care is private and patients are free to choose their own hospital and doctor -- than they do towards the privilege-destroying/competition-enhancing system which I advocate, I feel compelled to add that I would at least be open to single-payer if it were (a) accompanied by the relegalization of alternative medicine, and (b) funded with a single tax on land values:

       http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160421.0

I am unconditionally opposed, however, to "socialized medicine."

Some may now be asking, "But isn't single-payer health insurance the same thing as socialized medicine?"

Short answer: no, it isn't.

---------------------------------

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

[Continued...]

---------------------------------

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=122929.0 (Attention both libertarians and progressives: Obamacare is NOT single-payer!)

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530Y020090604

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
June 4, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

[Continued...]


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/january/denial-of-care-profits-73-million-for-cigna%E2%80%99s-retiring-ceo

Denial of Care Profits: $73 million for CIGNA’s retiring CEO

By Donna Smith, National Nurses Movement
January 7, 2010

It’s hard for most of us to imagine a lifestyle supported by a $73 million retirement bonus. It’s even harder to imagine a whole nation’s healthcare controlled by those who have benefited so wildly from denying healthcare to those who need it.

But Cigna’s Edward Hanway knows well what it feels like to rest in the lap of luxury thanks to all those profits he helped secure as he led one of the nation’s for-profit insurance giants through some very successful times. And as we lumber toward a new piece of healthcare legislation with new promises of expanded health insurance coverage and mandate for both individuals and employers to purchase private health insurance plans, insurance companies will have even more control over our healthcare – and the denials of care that make companies like Cigna pay out such obscene bonuses.

According to CIGNA’s press releases, Hanway had served in leadership capacities with America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Alliance for Health Reform. “He is an outspoken advocate at the national level for greater transparency regarding health care quality and cost information available to consumers and a strong proponent of national quality standards for health care providers. He is recognized as a leader in the effort to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of health care in the United States. Through the years, Hanway has been active in a wide range of issues and initiatives associated with health, education and international business.”

BEFORE you read further…National Nurses United, the new national union for RNs, is asking nurses and patients to demand Congress remove the mandates that would force Americans to purchase products from the CIGNA’s of the world. Call Rep. Pelosi (415-556-4862) and Sen. Reid (702-388-5020) and tell them to strip this bill of the CIGNA-mandates immediately!

Under Hanway’s leadership, Cigna also did what for-profit insurance companies do so very well to enhance the profits that become multi-million dollar bonuses. They denied care to thousands upon thousands of policyholders, and the company profits were protected.

[Continued...]


http://pnhp.org/news/2010/march/pro-single-payer-doctors-health-bill-leaves-23-million-uninsured

Pro-single-payer doctors: Health bill leaves 23 million uninsured

A false promise of reform

For Immediate Release      
March 22, 2010

Contact:
Oliver Fein, M.D.
Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H.
David Himmelstein, M.D.
Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Mark Almberg, PNHP, (312) 782-6006, mark@pnhp.org

The following statement was released today by leaders of Physicians for a National Health Program, www.pnhp.org. Their signatures appear below.

As much as we would like to join the celebration of the House's passage of the health bill last night, in good conscience we cannot. We take no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.
Instead of eliminating the root of the problem - the profit-driven, private health insurance industry - this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench these firms. The bill would require millions of Americans to buy private insurers' defective products, and turn over to them vast amounts of public money.

The hype surrounding the new health bill is belied by the facts:

*  About 23 million people will remain uninsured nine years out. That figure translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering.

*  Millions of middle-income people will be pressured to buy commercial health insurance policies costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering an average of only 70 percent of their medical expenses, potentially leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin if they become seriously ill. Many will find such policies too expensive to afford or, if they do buy them, too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles.

*  Insurance firms will be handed at least $447 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize the purchase of their shoddy products. This money will enhance their financial and political power, and with it their ability to block future reform.

*  The bill will drain about $40 billion from Medicare payments to safety-net hospitals, threatening the care of the tens of millions who will remain uninsured.

*  People with employer-based coverage will be locked into their plan's limited network of providers, face ever-rising costs and erosion of their health benefits. Many, even most, will eventually face steep taxes on their benefits as the cost of insurance grows.

*  Health care costs will continue to skyrocket, as the experience with the Massachusetts plan (after which this bill is patterned) amply demonstrates.

*  The much-vaunted insurance regulations - e.g. ending denials on the basis of pre-existing conditions - are riddled with loopholes, thanks to the central role that insurers played in crafting the legislation. Older people can be charged up to three times more than their younger counterparts, and large companies with a predominantly female workforce can be charged higher gender-based rates at least until 2017....

It didn't have to be like this. Whatever salutary measures are contained in this bill, e.g. additional funding for community health centers, could have been enacted on a stand-alone basis.

Similarly, the expansion of Medicaid - a woefully underfunded program that provides substandard care for the poor - could have been done separately, along with an increase in federal appropriations to upgrade its quality.

But instead the Congress and the Obama administration have saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.

This bill's passage reflects political considerations, not sound health policy. As physicians, we cannot accept this inversion of priorities. We seek evidence-based remedies that will truly help our patients, not placebos.

A genuine remedy is in plain sight. Sooner rather than later, our nation will have to adopt a single-payer national health insurance program, an improved Medicare for all. Only a single-payer plan can assure truly universal, comprehensive and affordable care to all.

By replacing the private insurers with a streamlined system of public financing, our nation could save $400 billion annually in unnecessary, wasteful administrative costs. That's enough to cover all the uninsured and to upgrade everyone else's coverage without having to increase overall U.S. health spending by one penny.

Moreover, only a single-payer system offers effective tools for cost control like bulk purchasing, negotiated fees, global hospital budgeting and capital planning.

Polls show nearly two-thirds of the public supports such an approach, and a recent survey shows 59 percent of U.S. physicians support government action to establish national health insurance. All that is required to achieve it is the political will.

The major provisions of the present bill do not go into effect until 2014. Although we will be counseled to "wait and see" how this reform plays out, we cannot wait, nor can our patients. The stakes are too high.

We pledge to continue our work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess: single-payer national health insurance, an expanded and improved Medicare for All.

Oliver Fein, M.D.
President

Garrett Adams, M.D.
President-elect

Claudia Fegan, M.D.
Past President

Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Congressional Fellow

David Himmelstein, M.D.
Co-founder

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D.
Co-founder

Quentin Young, M.D.
National Coordinator

Don McCanne, M.D.
Senior Health Policy Fellow

******

Physicians for a National Health Program (www.pnhp.org) is an organization of 17,000 doctors who support single-payer national health insurance. To speak with a physician/spokesperson in your area, visit www.pnhp.org/stateactions or call (312) 782-6006.

[Geolibertarian]

http://www.naturalnews.com/030852_alternative_medicine_children.html

Junk science alert: researchers declare alternative therapies dangerous to children based on scant evidence

by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com
Tuesday, December 28, 2010

(NaturalNews) The headline emblazoned across a new British Medical Journal (BMJ) press release proclaims this alarming warning:

       Complementary medicines can be dangerous for children!

But when you look at the proof that's supposedly been found documenting life-threatening dangers of complementary and alternative therapies, guess what? It simply isn't there.

Here are the facts:

[Continued...]

[Geolibertarian]

Although written over a decade ago, the following is as relevant and insightful now as it was then:

-----------------------------------

http://www.progress.org/archive/fold129.htm

The Paradox of Government-Monopoly Medicine

by Fred E. Foldvary
The Progress Report
2000

Why in the USA is health care a federal case? The nature of health care is that it is something you need at random, and when you need it, you've got to have it even at a high price. We also need food, but that we get on a regular basis, with no big surprises.

But while a health emergency can strike you at any time, like a tiger pouncing out of the dark, what appears random to the sufferers is a regularity for the population. We know that some regular percentage of folks will have injuries and illnesses during a year. That's why we can insure for it, just like we have life, home, and car insurance. So why don't folks just buy insurance privately?

In the USA, many do, only it's often done through the employer, since the boss gets a tax deduction and the worker does not. But many people are considered too poor to get insurance, so the federal government insures the poor with Medicaid and the old folks with Medicare. Now they want to expand the benefits to drugs. It is the nature of medicine that we can never have enough if it's user-free, so the push is to ever expand government coverage.

In Great Britain they decided that since everyone needs insurance, the national government may as well provide it to all. According to a poll by the Times of London, 46 percent of Britons regard their National Health Service as the greatest achievement of the British government in the 20th century (NCPA Policy Digest 2-10-00).

Is it not wonderful to get free health care? But it is not free - the British pay for it from taxes. As for the poor, government could instead give them health vouchers for private medical care. So the great benefit of government-provided medicine must be its monopolization, since if it is just a problem of money, then transfers or the redistribution of income would solve it.

The facts indicate that British health care is a wee bit short of utopian. The British NHS has 1.1 million patients on its hospital waiting lists, and half as many doctors per capita as the U.S.(1).

In cancer treatment, problems in the NHS include a chronic lack of funds, specialists, and treatment centers; unequal treatment throughout the country; and in some cases the postponement of aggressive treatment until it is too late. According to the World Health Organization, 25,000 Britons die of cancer unnecessarily each year. Britons are not provided with drugs that are routinely administered in the U.S. for colon cancer, leaving British subjects with a survival rate of 41% versus 64% for Americans. For women with breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 67% in Britain compared to 84% in the U.S.A.

As for the totality of health care, the United Kingdom spends about 6.8% of its gross domestic product on health care, versus 14% in the USA. In the UK, some 500 people a year die while on the national waiting list for heart operations (2).

Evidently just making medicine a government monopoly does not improve service. Why then do so many Britons regard nationalized medicine as their country's crowning achievement? Partly it may be ignorance of how their system compares with that of the US, where the government provides subsidies rather than direct service. But mainly it may be that subsidies, vouchers, and income transfers are politically more volatile and subject to cuts than the outright entrenched provision of the service by government.

So it seems the British want security in medical provision, even at poorer service, and at the root of their insecurity is poverty. It is not the abject poverty of being hungry and homeless, but the middle-class privation of insufficient purchasing power and the fear of losing employment.

Nationalized medicine treats the symptoms of middle-class privation, but at a cost of substandard care. The cause of middle-class privation is the poison of taxation and economic restriction. The effective remedy is true free trade and the removal of the poison by totally untaxing wages and shifting public revenue to the rent of land. Wages would gush up by eliminating the hemorrhage of taxation, removing blocks from circulation, and making the economy ever so much more productive by the better use of space.

With high wages and the security that comes from a high demand for labor, Britons would be able to scrap their nationalized health monopoly and would well afford a full choice of insurance, mutual aid, and fee-paid plans. Ultimately nationalized medicine is kept in power by the greed of those who profit from land and the ignorance of the public that does not see the economic reality behind the superficial money transactions of daily life.



References

1. Paul R. McGinn, "Brits Rate NHS as Top Achievement," American Medical News, January 31, 2000.

2. Sarah Lyall, "In Britain's Health Service, Sick Itself, Cancer Care is Dismal," New York Times, February 10, 2000.

-----------------------------------

I think the key point made by economist Fred Foldvary in the above article is that the health care issue is, at bottom, really about the unjust concentration of wealth and income in the hands of a relative few, since the varying degrees of poverty and privation that this concentration imposes on everyone else is what makes government assistance programs in general seem necessary in the first place.

To paraphrase Harry Browne, what ruling-class oligarchs and the corporate-whore politicians who lovingly serve them essentially do is cripple people economically, hand them a crutch, and then say: "See? You couldn't walk if it weren't for us!"

That's why the health care reform measures called for above must go hand-in-hand with the economic reforms called for here.