Competition is the way

"When businesses compete, you win," is true for consumers in every industry in America. From cell phones to computers, quality is improving and costs are shrinking as companies fight to offer the public the best product at the best price. But this philosophy is sadly missing from our health-care insurance system.

Health care comprises nearly 20 percent of our national economy, but outdated bureaucracy and red tape have stifled competition and raised costs. As a result, today more than 45 million are without any health coverage.

As President Bush and many others have noted, our third-party payer health-care system was built for the world of yesterday, not the opportunities of tomorrow. The current patchwork of state regulationhascreated50 mini-monopolies that are driving up costs for everyone, and no one bears this burden more than the ill, the elderly, and the working poor. New regulations cannot solve the problem, because excessive and unnecessary regulations are the problem.

In the past 30 years, state governments have instituted more than 1,500 mandated benefits. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, these mandates have increased the cost of individual health insurance by as much as 45 percent in some markets. Some people may not want or need health insurance coverage for drug abuse treatment, hair pieces, or acupuncture -- but if the state they live in mandates it, they can only buy policies with that coverage. You can be sure the policies are more expensive as a result. Speaker Dennis Hastert likened the situation to requiring everyone to purchase a Cadillac when all they want or need is a Chevy.

To address this problem, we have introduced the Health Care Choice Act, which would break down these state-imposed barriers to affordable insurance. Under the Health Care Choice Act, individuals would continue to shop for health insurance as they do now -- in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown, online, by mail or over the phone. But consumers would no longer be limited only to policies that meet their state's regulations and mandated benefits. Instead, they would be able to select from a wide array of insurance policies that are qualified in one state and offered for sale in multiple states, thus allowing them to choose the policy that best suits their needs -- and their budget.

For example, families could choose between similar policies with a $500 deductible that cost $3,780 in New Jersey, $1,471 in Maine, $466 in Wisconsin, or $355 in Arizona. With this huge variation in price, it's clear that consumers who already have health insurance -- especially those in excessively regulated states like New Jersey -- would see substantial savings. Plus small-business owners, young people and low-income working families who are currently priced out of the market could afford health insurance.

Additionally, this bill would allow insurance companies to consolidate administrative functions by making them comply with only a single state's review of coverage and qualifications, as opposed to 50. The savings would invariably find their way back to consumers as insurance companies lowered premiums to compete for business.

Not surprisingly, this bill faces opposition from lobbyists who have a vested interest in protecting the current monopoly system. Naysayers have already started claiming the sick will be left with skyrocketing premiums and unwitting consumers will be preyed upon by unprincipled insurers in under-regulated states. Scare tactics are always a predictable last resort of monopolies.

The good news is, Americans know firsthand the benefits of a free market -- more choices, lower prices, higher quality -- and there is no reason why we cannot help them see these same benefits in health care. This includes high-risk consumers, who would even have the option to decline coverage they don't truly need, thus increasing their savings even more. And states, currently charged with protecting their residents, will still have the capability and responsibility to go after insurance carriers that victimize consumers. Under this bill, states will simply be held accountable to reconcile their regulatory policies with the realities of a competitive market -- something they already successfully do in nearly every other sector of our economy.

The choice for the future of American health care is clear. Either we continue to allow bureaucrats and regulators to call all the shots and watch costs and the number of uninsured surge or we take steps to create a bold new patient-centered health-care system that puts Americans back in charge.

With the nation's health on the line, Congress must rise to the challenge and empower consumers,offerthem choices, and restore affordability. In doing so, we can insure that America's health care slogan for the 21st century will be "When insurance providers compete, patients win."

Source






Another abuse from the nasty Queensland government health system

David Gray's experience would be many people's worst nightmare. He went to a hospital for help with depression - and was locked up in a mental health ward without explanation under an Involuntary Treatment Order. During his 11 days in the ward, neither he nor his wife, Yvonne, was given any reason for his detention - or for the ITO. Under Queensland's mental health laws, Mr Gray could have been detained for two months until an independent Mental Health Review Tribunal was required to review the ITO. However, more than 80 per cent of ITOs are revoked before a patient is put before the tribunal, preventing many ITOs from being independently reviewed.

Until he went to Brisbane's Princess Alexandra Hospital three weeks ago, Mr Gray said he had no history of mental health, no history of violence, and no history of trying to harm himself. The 50-year-old builder admits he has been suffering from depression and has been on a variety of medication over the past five years to try to control it. Recently he said he was tired of the side-effects of the medication and wanted to see if counselling could help him to manage his illness without medication. He and his wife agreed he should go to the Community Mental Health service at Annerley to discuss what was available.

"My depression hit me after I stopped taking medication. I knew I was going to go down with my depression. I had been off them (depression medication) just over two weeks. It started to level off and I was coming out of my depression two days before my interview at Annerley," Mr Gray said. "I went to the interview in excellent spirits as I was looking forward to being able to speak to a psychiatrist to help me." Mr Gray said he talked to a nurse, who recommended that he go to PA Hospital where he could voluntarily admit himself into its mental health unit if he felt he needed to.

Soon after arriving at PA Hospital, Mr Gray found himself being escorted to its mental health unit by an orderly and two security guards. "I was starting to smell a rat. I thought: 'I am still in a hospital - they have professional staff here that will take care of me.' "At that stage I did not know they had made an assessment and put an ITO (Involuntary Treatment Order) on me." "It was not until the next day I knew this was not a hospital, it was a prison. And these are not nurses, these are jailers." After 11 days of incarceration, Mr Gray managed to escape from the mental health unit.

He says the entire saga has done more to damage his health than the original depression he wanted treated. A Queensland Health spokeswoman said the Health Services Act 1991 provided for the protection of patient confidentiality, and the department could not comment on individual patient matters. "A patient can be admitted voluntarily but changed to involuntary if they are assessed by the treating doctors as meeting the criteria for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 2000," the spokeswoman said.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.

***************************