Research: Government-run health care MORE expensive than private care

posted by Donny Ferguson on Jun 23, 2009

Health care researcher Dr. Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing in today's Investor's Business Daily, reveals the troubling findings of research into government-run health care programs. Despite Barack Obama's promises that his proposed government takeover of doctor's offices will somehow reduce costs, the facts show exactly the opposite is true.

You may click here to read the column. Dr. Anderson writes, in part:

The results are clear: Since 1970 — even without the prescription drug benefit — Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.

Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.

These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care — thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.

Libertarians have a better idea to reduce costs and ensure quality, affordable, univerally-available care:

* Allow taxpayers to deduct the costs of their health insurance from their income taxes.

* Repeal health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.

* Scrap unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.

* Allow Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.

LNC Chairman statement in response to President Obama's AMA address

Proposed government takeover of health care means higher costs, less effective care and rationing

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Committee Chairman William Redpath issued the following statement Tuesday in response to President Obama's address to the American Medical Association:

"There is no question our health care system is broken and in need of serious reform. Americans deserve health care that is affordable, effective and universally available. However, President Obama’s $1 trillion government takeover of hospitals and doctor’s offices is not the answer.

The Obama plan makes health care more expensive, less effective and less accessible through rationing and bureaucratic inefficiency. The fact is government-run health care systems are more expensive and less effective than systems run by doctors and health care professionals.

When President Obama told the story of Laura Klitzka, a Wisconsin mother suffering from breast cancer, he conveniently neglected to tell the audience that in nations with a government-run health care system much like the one he proposes, breast cancer is deadlier than in the United States.

According to health care policy expert Dr. John Goodman, among women diagnosed with breast cancer, like Laura, only one in five die in the United States. That death rate escalates to one in three in France and Germany and nearly half in the Britain and New Zealand. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2004 the deaths from cancer in the United States were 157.8 per 100,000 people. In Canada the rate was 169.0 and in the United Kingdom it was 175.6. Allowing more women to die from breast cancer is hardly the kind of reform we need in the United States.

The main causes of those increased deaths are the long waiting lists for treatment, the decreased amount of time a doctor can spend with the patient and the shortages of advanced medical equipment that are a hallmark of rationing – the method by which government-run systems attempt to cut skyrocketing costs.

The White House brushed on that topic in an April 19 appearance on “Meet The Press” in which economic advisor Lawrence Summers promised a government-run health care would cut costs by simply denying treatments and procedures to patients until the government decided it was acceptable.

President Obama once again touched on the promise of rationed health care in yesterday’s speech, blaming the rising costs of medical care not on government interference, but on the claim that Americans get too many medical tests and procedures.

For too many breast cancer patients in nations like Britain and France, the Obama model of government control and rationing has already a deadly failure. Doctors, not politicians and government accountants, should decide what tests a patient needs.

We need health care reform and we need it now. But the Obama plan – a federal government takeover – isn’t reform. It’s simply a plan to take the worst aspects of our current problems, namely the high costs and increasingly limited access, and magnify them. The Obama plan for a federal takeover of the health care system cuts costs, not through innovation or improved care, but by rationing access, putting the sick and suffering on waiting lists and denying Americans the medical care they need.

Libertarians have a better idea. Cut the costs of prescription drugs, insurance and technology by removing barriers put up by health care lobbyists in the form of protectionist laws and unneeded FDA regulations intended to price out the competition and block competing drugs and technologies from the market.

It is no coincidence that America’s health care system, once the best in the world, has become more unaffordable and ineffective as government has seeped further and further into it. The only way to make health care affordable, effective and universally available as the many other services we enjoy in the United States is to defeat the Obama plan for a government takeover and restore a competitive and efficient health care system."

Bill Redpath is the Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee

Delaware's Medicaid The Future for Heathcare?

Walgreens has announced they will no longer accept Medicaid for prescriptions in their pharmacies (which also include Happy Harry’s), citing the payout from the State of Delaware is not cost effective for filling prescriptions. This has put many citizens in Delaware in a situation where they have to find a new pharmacy to fill their prescriptions.

Now that national health care appears to be the next big issue, is the Walgreens situation going to be a precursor to a struggle between the private sector and government? Businesses need to have a certain gross profit margin to successfully pay employees, taxes, bills, and maintain cash on hand to successfully manage other aspects of their business. When the government on one hand demands you pay your taxes, yet with other hand gives you the short end of the stick when they do business with you. One could understand why a business would end that relationship with the government.

Could this be the situation if Health Insurance in Nationalized? A situation where businesses will not honor prescription cards from the government because they will lose money could be the future in America. Would legislation require and force businesses to accept the government health insurance and prescription cards? Will they institute price controls, production requirements, and other tedious mandates to hinder businesses? Why not just open up government pharmacies beside the future government doctor offices and eliminate the need for the private sector to worry about offering these services?

The most important thing is to first get government out of health care. When legislators and bureaucrats feel their relevance hinges on how complicated laws and regulations are, indicates to me that we no longer need those individuals.

The Health Insurance Solution (For Salisbury City Council Members)

This became a hot issue when former Salisbury Mayor Barrie P. Tilghman did not place it in the FY10 budget. Three City Council members have selected to use the Health Insurance and one member has decided to opt out when open enrollment comes up September 1, 2009. Historically this has been offered to City Council Members however it is not included in the City Charter as a part of the compensation package for Council Members and the Mayor.

This issue needs to be properly addressed by codifying the compensation for Elected Officials to include health insurance, life insurance, and retirement in the City Charter. Once it is set, then a decision needs to be looked into whether or not to grandfather in Council Members who currently receive these benefits. My answer would be yes, to grandfather them in. No matter what their position was when running for public office on the issue.

My personal view is I do not feel health insurance should be offered to City Council members in it's current form. I believe it should be offered as it is to City Employees. They are offered several stages, the basic which is covered by the city and then higher levels where the employee is required to pay for a portion of the premium.

That is where I stand on the issue and hopefully the Council and Mayor with proper advice can come to a solution that is both ethical and legal. We certainly do not need to have this to deal with in the future.

UPDATE: This has become an issue that has sky rocketed into the stratosphere. By Monday morning this is going to be national news. Jonathan Taylor, owner of Views of a Salisbury Grinch, has filed an ethics complaint against City Councilwomen Terry Cohen and Debbie Campbell.