There are two competing health care reform arguments: 1) Increased federal involvement; and 2.) Free market healthcare. As such, we strongly believe the free market, not the federal government can best improve: 1) Access to care; 2) Quality of care; and 3) Lower costs. However, no Congressional legislation currently proposed actually addresses any of the concerns shared by a vast majority of the American people. Indeed, if enacted, the current House bill, will achieve the exact opposite.
Now, what can be done differently? In brief, there are many alternatives to partial (or full) nationalization of the current healthcare system. A few include: 1.) Allowing interstate health insurance company competition; 2) eliminating "pre-existing" condition underwriting discrimination; 3) promoting high deductible (low premium) plans coupled with health savings accounts (HSAs).Furthermore, the notion of so-called healthcare "overhaul," is ridiculous on its face. Successful for-profit enterprise rarely initiates widespread, costly, and potentially irreversible changes, particularly in the currently embraced Congressional "hurry up" offense. In brief, we speak neither as a Republicans nor Democrats, but as a students of economics. Therefore, we can either increease market efficiencies vis-à-vis the right reform or bloat an already costly (and inefficient) medical system which discourages individuals to make wise medical decisions in a manner they see fit—the choice is clear.
0 comments:
Post a Comment