The Return of Hilarycare:

Published

The return of Hillarycare

This seems like an odd time for politicians to tout government-controlled health care. Less than a decade ago, the Clinton administration was shaken by the negative reaction to its "Hillarycare" proposal for a government medical monopoly. Just weeks ago, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected such a scheme at the state level. Advocacy of an idea that has repeatedly earned thumbs-down from Americans looks like an exercise in futility.

But health care costs are growing across the country, as are the ranks of the uninsured, eliciting screams from patients, doctors and employers who foot the bill for much medical coverage. That brings loud calls for a some sort of fix.

So people with a taste for government-monopoly medicine still see an opportunity to advance their cause. Now a state board in Maine is considering a tax-funded health system; the head of California Blue Shield has called for state-provided care; and Rhode Island legislators are studying similar ideas.

But government-dominated medicine doesn't just have low popularity ratings with the American public -- it has a bad track record in terms of performance, too.

In August 2002, the Fraser Institute, a research organization based in Vancouver, British Columbia, released a devastating comparison of the country's state health care system to plans in several primarily European countries. The Fraser researchers found poor availability of doctors and modern technology, long waits, unnecessary deaths and high costs.

The report concluded, "The models that produce superior results and cost less than Canada's monopoly-insurer, monopoly-provider system have: user fees; alternative, comprehensive, private insurance; and private hospitals that compete for patient demand."

In January 2002, the British Medical Journal published a comparison of Britain's National Health Service and California's private Kaiser Permanente HMO which found, "Our overall conclusion is that healthcare costs per capita in Kaiser and the NHS are similar to within 10% and that Kaiser's performance is considerably better in certain respects..."

Tennessee's unfortunate experience with government medicine confirms the findings in other countries. Once touted as a bold experiment in universal coverage, TennCare has foundered ever since. The program ran up high costs, fueling calls for a state income tax -- which sparked a grassroots tax revolt.

Tennessee was forced to tighten eligibility requirements and slash coverage.

But the fact that government-dominated medicine suffers from inefficiency and mismanagement doesn't minimize the problems with health care in the U.S. at a time when roughly 40 million Americans are uninsured.

However, while many Americans do go without health insurance, that's not necessarily because it's unaffordable. While the common perception is that individual coverage is expensive, eHealthInsurance, which offers online insurance price quotes, reported in 2001 that the average individual policy costs between $100 and $125 per month -- a tab well within the means of many Americans.

Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation proposes individual tax credits to further improve the affordability of health care coverage to low-income people.

Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) already let some people put money aside money for health costs the way they do for retirement, with the funds shielded from taxes. Such funds are especially helpful for workers who lose their jobs. Tom Miller, a researcher with the Cato Institute, recommends that Congress expand the pilot MSA program so that it's available to all Americans.

Neither MSAs nor tax credits would address the issue of people who choose to do without coverage, but they would make it increasingly clear that for some people, lack of coverage really is a choice.

But that doesn't solve the problem of high costs. Health care insurance premiums are expected to rise by 15%-20% in 2003 -- well above the rate of inflation.

Some costs -- in particular, those of developing new medicines and medical devices -- are partially attributable to regulations and bureaucratic delays that can and should be eliminated.

Then there's America's favorite pastime: litigation. Outrageous jury awards are reflected in high premiums which have spurred orthopedic surgeons to walk off the job in Nevada, and limit the availability of care elsewhere.

Litigation has hidden costs, too. A Harris Interactive poll recently found that a whopping 79% of surveyed physicians order unnecessary tests, while 41% prescribe unnecessary antibiotics, in an effort to discourage lawsuits.

Tort reform, such as California's award caps, short windows for lawsuits and inducements for quick settlement, could reduce financial pressure on doctors and patients.

People seeking radical reform might look to the SimpleCare system promoted by the non-profit American Association of Patients and Providers. Under SimpleCare, doctors lower their administration, billing and paperwork costs by dropping all insurance plans. Instead, they bill their patients in full at the time of care, at a reduced rate that reflects their lower overhead.

To be honest, no matter what is done to improve the affordability of American health, some people will fall through the cracks. That's inevitable whether in a market system or under a scheme of tax-supported medicine.

But at their worst, private health care providers must compete for the loyalty of doctors and patients. A government monopoly can force people to pay taxes to support the system -- whether they like it or not.

http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/socmed/

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Hillarycare isn't returning because it never left. After spending huge chunks of change to run endless TV commercials scaring folks with "you can't choose your own doctor, you can't choose your own hospital" the Big insurance companies adopted those very same ideas! How many of you have insurance that doesn't have PPO's?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Guns do kill people, and so does not having abortion clinics, kitkat.

Nurse Hardee

'Guns don't kill people abortion clinics kill people.' ...kitkat

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I have never seen a gun walk up to a person and shoot him.

A fetus is a baby. A baby is a human being. An abortion kills a fetus. Thus.....

Lacy and Conner? I guess then Scott Peterson really only murdered ONE person, that being Lacy. Conner did not exist?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Conversely, I never saw an abortion clinic stalking a pregnant mother, or a person who was shot WITHOUT a gun.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in 5 yrs OR, ASU Pre-Op 2 yr. ER.
Originally posted by donmurray

Conversely, I never saw an abortion clinic stalking a pregnant mother, or a person who was shot WITHOUT a gun.

WOOOOHOO!! Thank you!!:stone

Up Vote Up Vote ×

OK, one thing I find sad is that the only argument against changing our health system is "It could turn out worse". Well, it could turn out better. I don't see any reason to maintain the status quo, rather than trying to improve and I don't see any improvement ideas from the right.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Originally posted by fergus51

OK, one thing I find sad is that the only argument against changing our health system is "It could turn out worse". Well, it could turn out better. I don't see any reason to maintain the status quo, rather than trying to improve and I don't see any improvement ideas from the right.

ITA. and thank you for staying on topic.

gimme a BREAK. :p

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Originally posted by fergus51

OK, one thing I find sad is that the only argument against changing our health system is "It could turn out worse". Well, it could turn out better. I don't see any reason to maintain the status quo, rather than trying to improve and I don't see any improvement ideas from the right.

Fergus,

So you would suggest spending BILLIONS of dollars to change to a system that you can not convince anybody of, with any significant statistics is any better than what we have, and may in fact be worse.

You can find bad outcomes in the US. I can find similar stories throughout ALL of the universal healthcare systems. Why change to your bad stories? It doesn't make sense.

I did not say that it could turn out worse. I am saying it is worse or just as bad. That does not sound like something to change to. When you guys have a great system with all of your problems fixed, you all let me know and I'd agree to advocate change. How long have all of your systems been in play? Haven't you all figured out how to fix it yet? Why not? I know... they need more money, huh? Until then, forget it.

Kitkat

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Originally posted by donmurray

Conversely, I never saw an abortion clinic stalking a pregnant mother, or a person who was shot WITHOUT a gun.

So, the Peterson guy should not be convicted of TWO murders then, right? Laci is the ONLY HUMAN BEING that was murdered in your estimation? Cuz, Peterson killed his wife and that eight month old tissue in her uterus, or fetus, or cell ball..... or whatever you decide you want to call it. So, he should only be charged with one murder then, right?

How many sick abortion clinic stalkers/murderers have their been that have killed pregnant women (of whom I believe should be imprisoned for life)? Can you assign a number to them? Cuz, in MN alone we have over 14,000 abortions each and every year with the number rising.

And, I did not switch the topic, just for the record.....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Originally posted by kitkat24

Fergus,

So you would suggest spending BILLIONS of dollars to change to a system that you can not convince anybody of, with any significant statistics is any better than what we have, and may in fact be worse.

You can find bad outcomes in the US. I can find similar stories throughout ALL of the universal healthcare systems. Why change to your bad stories? It doesn't make sense.

I did not say that it could turn out worse. I am saying it is worse or just as bad. That does not sound like something to change to. When you guys have a great system with all of your problems fixed, you all let me know and I'd agree to advocate change. How long have all of your systems been in play? Haven't you all figured out how to fix it yet? Why not? I know... they need more money, huh? Until then, forget it.

Kitkat

Kitkat, half of the stories, opinions and "studies" you post are complete bunk and when that is pointed out you just ignore it. I have told you that I can hire and fire my doctor, she does have to provide me with good care, I pay LESS than you for healthcare, etc. but despite this, you continue to insist that I am either wrong or crazy or a liar cause you continue to say those things are all terrible under "socialized medicine" and dismiss any problems with the American system. There is evidence that OTHER ways of doing things work better from a population perspective, despite their problems. You just choose to ignore it and that's perfectly fine.

I actually don't think the US needs a Canadian system, but I do think the US needs a WAY better American system. It is embarassing that in the wealthiest country in the world there are people who can't afford healthcare and people who have no chance of ever being able to. And believe it or not, they aren't all worthless alcoholics.

And why should a universal system have to be perfect or completely dismissed? If it isn't the answer, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS? How do we deal with the problems the US already has with healthcare? How? By your argument, it's been around for a while so shouldn't all the kinks be worked out by now? It's easy to say something is bad, it takes vision to come up with solutions. I don't see any vision coming from the right in this matter, only the politics of fear. Be afraid of change, be afraid....:eek: and we will never try to come up with anything to improve our system.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

BTW, the law is clear in the matter of Lacy Peterson. A person can be charged with the murder, UNLESS it is a doctor performing an abortion. There is a reason they specifically exclude abortion in the law.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion