With the Senate’s vote this Saturday to begin debate on health care legislation, the most contentious of the Obama administration’s domestic policy initiatives is back in the national spotlight. And with the Senate bill set to follow in the footsteps of its House predecessor by dramatically increasing the government’s role in health care, David Gratzer’s new pamphlet, “Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster,” the first in a series from Encounter Books, could not be timelier.
As a Canadian, Gratzer, now a physician and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, well understands what he calls the “government temptation.” Since youth, he writes, he was taught to believe that Canada’s government-run system was the envy of the world. He learned differently when he attended medical school. Where the Canadian system’s supporters saw success, Gratzer saw rationed care and long waits for important medical procedures.
Not much has changed. In 2006, for instance, Ontario woman Sylvia de Vries had to travel to the United States to have a 40-pound tumor removed by an American surgeon. Although she was within weeks of dying, she was still on a waiting list to see a specialist in Canada. Government-run health care, it turns out, doesn’t live up to its billing.
All the more incongruous, then, that the Obama administration, abetted by Congressional Democrats, has taken health care systems in which government plays a large role as the model for its reforms. Gratzer makes a compelling case that this model is fundamentally flawed. Not only is it wrong in its core assumption that an expanded role for the federal government will improve health care, he writes, but the actual experience of the countries that the administration hopes to emulate argues against any attempt to follow their example.
The Canadian case is instructive. Arguably, Canada does boast the more egalitarian health care system. But that is mostly because treatment options for all Canadians, regardless of economic status, are equally poor. Thus, Gratzer reports that in Alberta, Canada’s wealthiest province, 50 percent of outpatients waited more than 41 days for an MRI in 2008. In Nova Scotia, 50 percent of hip replacement patients waited over 201 days “or longer” for surgery. So limited is access to healthcare that small towns hold lotteries for a dear prize: a visit to a family doctor. For many Canadians, socialized medicine literally is a gamble with their lives.
Defenders of ObamaCare might point out that European systems have done more to inspire the Democrats’ legislation than Canada’s troubled example. But do European systems achieve better results? Not necessarily. In any number of comparisons with European countries, American health care more than holds its own. For instance, Americans are more likely to be treated for chronic illnesses than their European counterparts. They are also more likely to survive diseases like cancer. A 2007 Lancet Oncology study of survival rates for 16 different types of cancer found that American men had five-year survival rates of 66 percent, compared to 47 percent for European men. For women, the numbers were 63 percent for American women and 56 percent for European women.
Nor is it true that the United States spends more on health care than Europe only to get inferior results. Gratzer finds that the costs of health care in France, Canada, Ireland, and Britain are rising at roughly the same rate as in the U.S.
That is not to say that there aren’t real problems with the American system. Most notably, health care has become less affordable. Health insurance premiums have almost doubled since 2000, Gratzer notes, even as American workers have seen their wages stagnate. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ proposals are likely to add to the costs of health care while diminishing its quality and availability.
One way this could happen is through mandates on private insurers to provide specified types of coverage. Such mandates already distort the insurance market. For instance, insurers in Washington and Minnesota must require coverage for “port wine stain elimination”; 12 different states force insurers to cover acupuncture; another 15 states force them to cover in vitro fertilization. For their part, the insurance companies pass on the costs to consumers in the form of higher premiums. Wisconsin has 34 mandates, while New York has 51. As a consequence, a basic plan that would cost around $3,000 in Wisconsin sells for $12,000 in New York.
Another bad idea that risks becoming policy is the government insurance option, versions of which appear in both the House and the Senate bills. Designed to keep private insurers “honest,” the public option would stack the deck in favor of a government-run plan. The House health care bill, for instance, would exempt the government plan from state taxes and regulations; private insurers would enjoy no such advantage. That would allow the government plan to keep premiums artificially low, crowding out private insurers and ultimately driving consumers into the government program. Little wonder than the Lewin group estimates that some 114 million people would shift from private to government coverage if the public option were implemented.
The broader problem with these measures is that they fail to address the high costs that plague the current health care system. Indeed, none of the administration’s reforms addresses the real reason that American health care is so expensive: a tax code that distorts the price of health care. Thanks to a tax break for employer-provided health care, Americans are far removed from the actual costs of health care, paying only 13 cents to the dollar. As Nelson Sabatini, Maryland’s former secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, puts it: “Using health care is like shopping with someone else’s credit card.”
There are better solutions. Gratzer calls for a national insurance market that would allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines and drive down costs through competition. He also wants health plans to promote healthier choices. As an example, he cites the grocery chain Safeway, which created a so-called “healthy measures” program that offers workers cash incentives for improving their health, whether by not smoking, reducing their salt intake, exercising more and eating better. Thanks to the pilot program, Safeway has seen no rise in net health insurance costs even as other companies have seen costs soar by as much as 40 percent.
Some of Gratzer’s proposals are bound to be controversial. Even many Republicans are likely to balk at his call to privatize Medicare. But given the unsustainable costs of the program – Medicare has some $89 trillion in future liabilities – its indisputable that eventually something will have to be done.
For now, though, there is the Democrats’ plan to contend with. Gratzer’s final verdict on their efforts is that they have “tried to do too much, too quickly and with too much government.” The good news is that Americans by and large agree. Nearly half of the American public now opposes the Democrats’ reforms, with many believing that the quality of care will deteriorate under the “reformed” system.
The bad news is that Democrats and the Obama administration still seem determined to pass their legislation within the next few months. Gratzer’s pamphlet serves as a bracing reminder of just what that could mean for the country.
I know someone that is in constant pain because of the drivers insurance company ability to smear his lifestyle to a jury and convince them that it is his character that caused his problems not the accident. He went through a windshield twice and the first time caused nerve damage. The second time he went through the windsheild it iflected unbearable pain. His face features have changed for the worse and his hair has prematurely fallen out. He's in prison now in part because his pain causes him to go into rages. So when the neighborhood bully tried to reach him though is car window, Billy stabbed his arm with a knife. Unfortunately, he hit an artery and the bully almost bleed to death.
As a result, he has nearly finished his 7 year prison term. This isn't the first run in Billy has had with the law and he surely has a bad reputation.
But does that give the right of the insurance company to use that against him in front of a jury?
I was the only one willing to destify on his behalf. Everyone else in the neighborhood betrayed him for a mere $200 for their time. Actually, the ones that betrayed him was a redneck maintenance man of the complex as well as the cocain addict of a manager.
So there is the sum of your current health care system. Surely Billy would have to wait for his nerve damage operation in Canada but he surely wouldn't have had to spend 7 years in prison only to have to still deal with his pain.
I wonder if the Amish are going to be forced into health care, too?
Good article, but you didn't address the coming plight of the elderly in the U.S.A. healthcare system. Remember retired seniors have paid all demanded taxes into Federal healthcare programs all their working lives and expected to draw those benefits after retirement. Remember too Senior retirement benefits raise zero to little compared to the rise of consumer costs, including health care, food, housing, gasoline, etc. Are U.S.A. senior citizens doomed to early destruction by an ignoring and money focused Federal and State government and the people who think they will never get old?
This is true. Obama's lackeys have already started trying to ration medical care. Last week, they announced that mammograms shouldn't start until 50, with pap smears not starting until 40. This is despite the fact that many women with breast cancer find it in their 30's, and prompt medical care lets them save their own bodies.
Under the Obama plan, little children and people over 50 don't count, and will be consigned to the death panels. After all, why take care of people that aren't working or drawing a wage, but they'll damned sure take care of illegal immigrants, and welfare reciepients, because it's always good to take care of your slaves.
Actually, he probably would have spent time in prison if the same thing happened in Canada.
Probably, because the governmentalists will say that it is high time that they were forced to give up their unique lifestyle and go mainstream. Religion is of no importance to anyone in their view, unless they are a muslim terrorist.
Correct, but the trillions in unfunded Medicare liabilities was mentioned, and that should be enough to put people on notice that the plan is in trouble. The Obama plan is to ration Seniors as is the case in Canada and in some parts of Europe. Thus, the seniors should be storming the white house with pitchforks and torches.
DEMOCRATS HAVE DIVORCED THEMSELVES FROM CITIZENS. ACTING LIKE PRIVATE CZARS, DEFENDING **THEIR OPINION** REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENS (THEY USED TO SAY THEY REPRESENTED) DEMOCRATS NOW THINK THEIR AGENDA IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY WISHES OF CITIZENS. THEY HAVE DROPPED ALL PRETENSE OF (PRETEND) REPRESENTATION OF CITIZENS. THEIR ARROGANCE REEKS OF MARXISM THOUGHT – WHERE ELITES RULE W/O ANY CONSIDERATION OF CITIZENS & EFFECTS.
THIS PRETEND HEALTH CARE IS ALL ABOUT COVER UP OF CONGRESS NOT ADDRESSING THE HUGE NUMBER OF BABY BOOMERS RETIRING. KNOWN ABOUT FOR 40 YEARS/YET CONGRESS REFUSED TO DEAL WITH THIS VAST NUMBER BY USING SS $$ FOR THEIR OWN NEEDS, NOW THEY WILL JUST ELIMINATE ALL BOOMERS FROM FROM SS RETIREMENT & MEDICARE.
OUTRAGE OVER DUPLICITY & LIES.
Everything our government does is staged. I await my next Social Security check to be an IOU.
The important questions are these?
1. Where is the Constitutional authority for federal government mandated health care?
2. Congress, White House employees, and millions of federal employees, retirees, their spouses, and their children are exempt from all of the bills. If any of them will solve all our health care problems, as the Democrats claim, why aren't these millions of people required to participate?
Your article is a crock of shit.
Why dwell on this crap while you have a subversive in the White House???
I have dual citizenship and have seen both side of the issue.
Canadian health care is excellent, my mother and aunt had knee and hip implants
and never waited more than two weeks, PERIOD!!!
In contrast, in Florida, my insurance was charged 200,000$ for TPa treatment,
treatment that would cost Quebec health care 5,000$!!!
I need a scintigram every three years for my pilot licence…Florida
cost? 6,000$ on the barrelhead…Michigan clinic charged me 300$
and Quebec get charged 100$
Quebec insurance cost me 800$ a year total(I pay dental out of pocket)
Florida would cost me 6,000$ a year…basically nobody is insured in Florida
unless they are government or big corporation employees or retired.
The USA's problem is the out of control greed of the medical profession!!!
God, what a big crock of victimology crap and probably is all made up. And I suppose under Obamacare he would have gotten medical care. Oh by the way, how come he doesn't have his own medical insurance and his own drivers auto insurance? Ahhh,,, yes needs the money for his booze and drugs.
Would you believe California state employees have already received state government IOUs once and so have people who have state income tax refunds coming. So you are not that far out!
Elaine, it goes like this. Liberal Democrats believe that the Constitution is a living document and they can do anything they want as social engineering under “provide for the general welfare” clause. To Liberal Democrats, it means “Soon we will have enough of a majority of dependency classes, and when the Supreme Court is stacked, we will do anything we want to the individual and the Constitution be damned.” and they mean it literally!
I have a friend in California whom I asked to loan me 10% of her income. I don't think that went over too well, just as all the rest of these outrageous proposals have in Washington. Presently, all of us are being flooded with various taxes within our own states. The subterfuge just doesn't seem to end.
Somehow, I knew you would pick up on that, Sniper, Your title reveals someone trained to watch your back.
Let's stop calling them liberals and Democrats. They are subversives and anarchists.
They don't recognize the U.S. Constitution. They use the Communist Manifesto and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals as their operative guides.
First, you only have dual citzenship as far as Canada is concerned – as dual citizenship is not recognized by the United States. You see,I know, because, when my children were born in the US my wife and I were both Canadians so we registered them as Canadians born abroad, and they are Americans by birthright.
Canadian healthcare quality varies from province to provinvce, and our large number of relatives have opinions from it is good to it is a failure. Read this from the head of the Frazier Institute and then you will have an imformed opinion.
http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storag…
How much of your income do you have to first pay to the Canadian government before you pay for your insurance plan which the government controls?
“The USA's problem is the out of control greed of the medical profession.” You have got to be kidding. The only profession that is underpaid is the medical profession, some of whom make substantially less than do-nothing government employees and steroid-taking athletes as well as mentally-challenged, drugged-out prostitutes called actors.
Your first and last Social Security check was and is an IOU.
The only reason you get a monthly check is that there are still workers who are mandated to contribute a portion of their income to Social Security. As more and more of worker's income will be required to fund current retirees benefits, one day a worker's entire income will have to be confiscated to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and our new government controlled health destruction.
Point one, I can still spend it so it is not an IOU, but a loan the Chinese have guaranteed, IOU's will come later, though.
Point two, you're right, and the sniper will agree, too. (I suspect there are quite a few hiding in the Republican party, too.)
Henry, your first sentence defines your liberal attitude, I didn't neet to read any further, sir.
There are private enterprise solutions to this problem, but overcoming the obstacles to true competition is the first step. So many costs from the government programs now in place (medicare and medicaid) are passed on to consumers via higher prices to the insured, driving up premiums.
Sylvia de Vries was not within weeks of dying. The tumor was not even considered life threatening. Please get the facts correct if you wish to further your argument on that front.
[...] the Senate bill did what it is supposed to do – namely, reduce health insurance premiums that are rising faster than American’s wages. Instead, it would raise premiums for most [...]
[...] the Senate bill did what it is supposed to do – namely, reduce health insurance premiums that are rising faster than American’s wages. Instead, it would raise premiums for most [...]