Health Care: The Debate that Never Was - Part 3

The Alternative That Never Was
“Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on society and conservatives on you and your family.” – Dennis Prager

There is indeed a problem in the health care industry. Very few would argue that reform is not needed in some fashion. Costs are incredibly high and far too many lack access to the preventative health care that they need.

This bill is not the answer. It is the result of failed leadership. That blame can be equally distributed to Republicans and Democrats alike. Democrats passed this bill under enormous political pressure and Republicans failed to provide a coherent alternative.

Sure, Republicans tried to suggest ideas like tort reform and interstate competition but they provided no clear definition of how that would look. More than that, they framed their argument around the notion that this bill was just too much too fast and that they simply preferred a little less of the same basic thing.

It must be made clear that the conservative solution to the health care market is entirely different from this bill and all of the suggestions made in Congress in recent months. It is the result of a different way of thinking altogether. The federal government, already lost in debt, cannot and must not interfere in private industry. It cannot and must not create new entitlements and expand the already far too large dependent class in this country. The responsibility to purchase and provide health insurance must rest not with the bureaucracy of Washington but with individual citizens who should be able to choose as freely as possible.

The problem with the health care industry is not that it is filled with greedy capitalists wishing to make a profit. The problem with the health care industry is that it is already overregulated and subject to unreasonable lawsuits. Those are the fundamental problems in the system that must be fixed.

To solve this problem, I propose the Liberty in Health Care Act.

Provisions of the Liberty in Health Care Act
This act would utilize the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to require that individual states permit its citizens and businesses to purchase insurance from any state across the country under no additional regulation. This would vastly increase competition in the health care insurance market place which would inevitably drive down costs. This would lead to massive deregulation of the health care insurance market place as states would compete in order to provide the best business environment for health care companies. Deregulation means that individual citizens and businesses decide what matters to them and purchase health care insurance that fits them, not the desires of politicians in state capitals. No longer would we have a one-size-fits-all insurance market. Ultimately, some benefits would be too costly for individuals and businesses to purchase, but that decision would be made by them, not by bureaucrats.

This act would also utilize Congress’s express duty to uphold contracts to require that all insurance providers and customers disclose to each other prior to the purchase of insurance their terms and agree to those terms. This agreement then has the force of any contract. This provision would deal directly with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing conditions should be an optional provision in any contract with a price attached to it. Insurance companies may determine the cost of insuring pre-existing conditions and the customer may determine the price they are willing to pay for that protection. Once they sign their agreement, though, that contract is binding and insurance companies may not back out of a pre-existing condition agreement no matter what health concerns are later uncovered.

This act would create a system of special medical courts to handle medical malpractice suits and institute a cap on punitive damages. These special courts would be based in the states and try cases brought against doctors and medical institutions in front of panels of specialists on medical codes. This would provide a stiff check on the rising costs of medical malpractice suits in this country which are one of the primary factors in rising medical costs. It would also allow for a system to remain which would handle true cases of medical malpractice while sorting out frivolous ones.

This act would abolish federal standards for Medicaid and free up state governments to take necessary measures to resolve the fiscal crises that the programs are creating at the state level. This would also allow for the federal government to cut costs by eliminating significant portions of regulatory agencies such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

This act would repeal the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program which requires pharmaceutical companies to register through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid in order for their products to be eligible for Medicaid coverage. Instead, an emphasis would be placed on shifting state Medicaid programs toward Medicaid managed care which allow states to contract their Medicaid out to private insurance companies at a fixed price per enrollee. These companies focus on generic brands and minimize costs for drugs more efficiently than state-run Medicaid programs even with the Drug Rebate Program.

This act would repeal the Medicare Part D program passed in 2003 under President George W. Bush which provided coverage for prescription drugs for seniors. Instead, in order to drive down the costs of prescription drugs, all pharmaceutical companies would be granted tax-exempt status which would eliminate more than 15% of the cost of production.

This act would also establish a Business Health Insurance Incentive Plan which would allow for a deduction in taxes for all businesses regardless of size equal to the amount spent providing health insurance to their employees under a reasonable cap. This would allow for businesses to provide top notch health insurance to its employees directly in a way that suits their own needs without the transfer costs associated with collecting and distributing tax dollars.

Summary
This is the kind of reform that this country’s health care industry needs. It vastly increases competition, reduces regulatory burdens, and eliminates taxes. These great reductions in cost would lead to an inevitable drop in prices and also help to rejuvenate a lapsing economy. The act would encourage efficiency by reducing government obligations and increasing reliance on private business. The program would renew individual freedom and liberty in the health care marketplace by truly providing options that may be personalized to each and every individual under no federal regulations. If enacted, it would also substantially reduce the negative impact of medical malpractice suits that plague the industry and drive up costs and hurt doctors across the country.

Ultimately, the difference in this plan and the bill that recently passed in Congress is that this plan focuses on freeing up business and individuals to do the most they can with what they have. This plan says that the way to increase access to affordable health care is to drive down the costs of producing that health care through competition and allowing as many choices to the consumer as possible. Instead, the bill that passed mandates access to a heavily regulated system with limited choice. It manages to reduce cost only in the imaginations of those that created it and CBO officials who only see what they are told to see. It moves responsibility from individuals in offices and homes to bureaucrats in state capitols and Washington, D.C.

Clearly, these are two entirely different views on how to fix our nation’s health care system. There is room for debate between the two views and reasonable minds may disagree. The problem is that only one of these views was clearly presented to the public in the recent health care debate. One side proposed a lot of it and the other a little less of it. Meanwhile, the conservative ideals of liberty and freedom were hardly presented at all as a solution. When it was, it was presented in bits and pieces, not as an entirely separate alternative to the sweeping change presented by President Obama.

What Now?
“So what Republicans have to do is to make the 2010 and the 2012 elections referenda on Obamacare, win those elections, and then repeal Obamacare.” – Bill Crystol

This fight is not over. Of course, there will be Constitutional challenges to the process and attempts to demonize the trio of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid as the three horsemen of the apocalypse reigning over us all with absolute power and forcing socialism into our country. As Admiral Ackbar might say, “It’s a trap!”

This is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for Republicans to return to the conservative ideals of liberty and freedom by presenting a clear alternative to this healthcare bill. They must run their campaigns focused on what this healthcare bill, and all the legislation that has preceded it, has done to focus control in Washington, D.C. They must focus on the damage that this has done and will continue to do to our economy. They must focus on the real ideological difference between them and their opponents by proposing to do more than “repeal Obamacare” but to replace it with something different, something better.

They must focus their efforts on winning the country back for liberty. They must focus on individual responsibility.

The people want to hear it from somebody. The Tea Party is but a subset of a vast group of Americans yearning to believe that somebody still trusts in the American people and their ability to help themselves when given every opportunity to. They want leaders who have the vision to propose ideas that lead to long-term solutions, not inevitable debt and decline.

That is the path for a Republican take-over of the House. That is the path for a Republican majority in the Senate. That is the path to the White House. Republicans must only stand beside the principles of freedom and use liberty as the bedrock of their policy proposals to return this nation to a prosperity not seen for a long, long time.