A brief article on the history of why the healthcare system got to where it is, and why the McCain plan is actually the only one of the two (between his and Obama’s) that can truly accomplish anything:  by putting more control back in the hands of the consumer instead of simply shifting control from EVIL Insurance companies to the ALL-LOVING Federal Government.

Mr. Jacoby is very explicit in explaining the history of the problem:

During World War II, federal wage controls barred employers from raising their workers’ salaries, but said nothing about fringe benefits. So firms competing for employees at government-restricted wages began offering medical insurance to sweeten employment offers. Even sweeter was that employers could deduct those benefits as business expenses, yet employees didn’t have to report them as taxable income. For a while the IRS resisted that interpretation, but Congress eventually enshrined the tax-exempt status of employer-based medical insurance in law.

Result: a radical shift in the way Americans paid for medical care. With health benefits tax-free if they were employer-supplied, tens of millions of Americans were soon signing up for medical insurance through work. As tax rates rose, so did the incentive to keep expanding health benefits. No longer was medical insurance reserved for major expenditures like surgery or hospitalization. Americans who would never think of using auto insurance to cover tune-ups and oil changes grew accustomed to having their medical insurer pay for yearly physicals, prescriptions, and other routine expenses.

Now, I actually don’t agree with the part of McCain’s proposal that taxes employer-based coverage.  I’m more interested in parity (making sure that individuals get the same tax cut), than I am a punitive approach.  But it at least cuts at the core of the problem: the individual has been left out of the process for far too long.  It’s actually just a little too harsh.

I preferred the plan that President Bush proposed in a State of the Union address a few years ago (seems like so long ago), and that was a tax-credit (and a pretty sizable one, if I recall) for those participating in Consumer-Driven (High-Deductible) Health Plans.  That would have accomplished a lot as far as getting more control of costs back in the hands of the consumer without giving a Democratic contender ammunition to call the Republican contender a tax-hiker.

(Mirrored on logipundit.com)

A little news I thought might be worth mentioning:

The Loudoun SBDC is putting on an event this coming Tuesday, April 29th, from 6:00 to 8:30pm, titled “Health-Care Options for Small Businesses” (Full info here). There will be various representatives from the health field (yours truly included) talking about how Small Businesses can best contain risks and Health-Care costs for their companies and employees.

SO please:

a) attend (IT’S FREE!), but register ahead of time.
b) forward this along to your respective networking groups, organizations, committees, etc, so that all those seeking an education on this topic will have the opportunity.

Any questions about the event, please direct to the Loudoun SBDC.

Here’s a grand example of how Congress can talk out of both sides of its mouth. On one side they are concerned about making Health Insurance more affordable; and on the other, they want to make it just a little more difficult for us to manage our own healthcare. First of all, this story does not mean that HSAs really lose any of their benefits, but it is simply the Congress trying to “save” tax dollars by making it more bureaucratic to save money in an HSA. It’s complete nonsense and is further evidence that those in Congress that talk about Health Care “affordability” only want that affordability to exist within the framework of Socialized medicine:

This week, the House passed legislation that included a provision to require every HSA transaction be reviewed and verified as a legitimate medical expense. Democrats say this is to ensure that consumers are using their tax-free withdrawals for a knee replacement, rather than a new iPod. In reality it adds a layer of bureaucracy that could sharply reduce the appeal and cost savings of HSAs.

A key player here is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark, whose main purpose in politics is to give the U.S. a government-run health-care system. He is a known opponent of HSAs – once comparing them to “weapons of mass destruction” – because they introduce more individual choice into the health-care marketplace.

Pushing for the provision was a company called Evolution Benefits, which has patented a system for the substantiation of health-care expenses. Evolution’s lobbyist, John McManus, was the former staff director of the Health Subcommittee under Republican Bill Thomas. The company first lobbied for the HSA provision, then withdrew its support when Republicans began to focus on its role. But Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel helped make sure the provision was in the bill, which passed largely on partisan lines.[emphasis mine]

But hey…we want to keep “Special Interests” out of Washington, right? If we as health-care consumers want to continue to have control over our health-care without the Government making it difficult for us, we need to make sure this provision does not pass. Call YOUR Senator, and while you’re at it, call the three that are running for President, and make sure this bill is stopped.

This is an interesting site about Free-Market medicine.

I particularly like this article where David Gratzer (author of The Cure) explains what the real problem is, and why socialization is not the answer. It begs the question: if we ARE in a market-driven system, why is it that costs don’t go down like other high-tech fields? The answer is: we’re NOT in a market-driven system. And it’s tough to argue that a truly market-driven system definitely wouldn’t work. So shouldn’t we try it first?

A lot of the rest of the site has videos that dispel some myths about the current system…like the number of people that are uninsured by choice, and the extent of the safety net for those who don’t have a choice.

A sister site, On the Fence Films, has a video about a brain surgery patient from Ontario which illustrates the flaws in a single-payer system.  Many of the arguments for “rationed care” simply comes to this:  only poor people are important, and those with jobs and money should have to wait just like everyone else.  Tell that to this gentleman.  The dirty truth is…even a poor person in the U.S. with no “coverage” would have better “access” than this middle class family in Ontario.  And our private system would eat the bill.

In addition, missing from the conversation of Government Health Care is the fact that local governments and non-profits have been an effective solution so far for those without private coverage.  Like the Loudoun Free Clinic, where anyone in the county who makes less than 200% of poverty can get FREE health care.

An interesting article about Health Insurance from the Journal. Unfortunately, most of it seems to be tailor made only for those who have severe medical problems:

“Nine times out of 10, if you can get access to employer-sponsored group coverage, take the employer-sponsored policy,” says Karen Politz, a research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. “Dollar-for-dollar, you get a lot more protection.”

This is true especially if you have serious health issues that would eliminate you from qualifying for individual coverage. (more…)

John Stossel did a 20/20 piece last week on Whole Foods helping their employees really manage their health care costs. It’s an excellent display, not just of how market forces can keep prices down, but how the absolute best person to determine how to spend your health care dollars is guess who? You.

The long and short of it is…as long as someone else (whether it’s your employer or your government) is making the decision on how you spend your money, the less efficiently that money is going to be spent.

Here’s the article.