The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

The day health care died

Jason Fodeman
Internal Medicine Resident

The health care debate has offered much discussion about different ways to bend the cost curve down. While the administration was quick to offer its radical prescription allegedly to curtail health care spending, to this day there has been no attempt to ascertain its etiology. “What” the problem is (ahem, high health care costs) is obvious to all. But after months of speeches and interviews President Obama even now has yet to address the “why.” Why does health care cost so much in this country?

The question is a simple one, but it’s a crucial one. While arguments of increased disease prevalence, insurance, waste, and technological advances certainly warrant mention, most of the blame lies with a third party payer system that isolates patients from cost at time of purchase. Once the initial insurance premium has been paid additional services only require a copayment. The often nominal fee does not sufficiently reflect actual cost or value of the service and hence fails to restrain demand. This throws normal market forces out the window and creates a situation where all the players in the game have no incentive to control costs. Thus costs soar. Insurance companies can increase the initial fee to employers, even though this may decrease worker salary. The insured public also looks the other way because they view it as an employer or insurer expense and not theirs. In the end no one is watching the store.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the federal government has not been an innocent bystander to this trend. To the contrary Medicare has been the catalyst. In 1965, the year Medicare became law, 52 percent of per capita health care expenditures were out of pocket. By 2005 this had plummeted to only 15 percent. As out of pocket spending declined, the prevalence of third party payers has skyrocketed. Coincidentally, since 1965 real per-capita health care expenditures have increased approximately six-fold.

ObamaCare will put over one trillion dollars into the health care system. To do this without fundamentally reforming the reason for rising health care costs is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. Further expanding the role of government in the health care sector will only serve to accelerate current trends. It will drown an industry already regulated to death with a slew of new mandates, regulations, red tape, and taxes that simultaneously will hinder patients from receiving desired care.

Limits on out of pocket spending and establishing a minimum standard of mandated benefits will expand the third party payer system that has been key to escalating costs. New taxes on drugs, medical devices, and health insurance will do the same with the added expenses ultimately being taken from the pocket of John Q. Patient. Enrolling more and more into Medicaid with its stingy reimbursement regimen will encourage people to obtain care in the most costliest of venues: expensive and already overpacked emergency rooms.

Mr. Obama has honed in on the main contributor to cost increases. Yet rather than mitigating the third party payer system, his approach will expand it like never before. This will increase costs and increase insurance premiums. It will indeed bend the cost curve, but upwards not down. More importantly the bill that just passed the House will give unaccountable bureaucrats unprecedented power over medical decisions normally reserved for private discussions between patients and doctors.

Today is not the day that saved health care. Rather it’s the day that sent the world’s premier health care system to its grave.

Jason D. Fodeman, M.D. is an internal-medicine resident at the University of Connecticut. A former health-policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation, he is the author of How to Destroy a Village: What the Clintons Taught a Seventeen Year Old.

  • frenchengineer

    Your analysis would be correct… If there were not counterexamples.

    The french system has a “third party payer system”. Our costs per capita are roughly half yours. Our resuslts in terms of health are better. better life expectancy. Lower infant mortality rate. In short, what you say is the opposite of how the real world works.

    So why is that?

    Because in matters of health, the free market is not the right tool. Ill people are forced to pay whatever they are told to pay. Otherwise, they die. Litteraly. What price are you willing to put on tyour own life? At what point do you say “no, this is too expensive, I’d rather die”?

    This is why the government needs to be involved. Doctors have little to no incentive to lower costs. It’s their livelihood. Insurance companies have no incentive either. The more the costs soar, the more they raise their premiums. Since thay can stop paying whanever they think their clients cost too much, it’s their profit margin that goes up.

    The governement is the only actor with enough power to force a decline in the costs, and any incentive to do so. If, like in France, one has to rack up a deficit in order to finance this, I daresay it’s a nobler cause than waging war in the middle east. And most of the deficits of the french social security come from the retirement funds, anyways.

    Welcome to the club of civilized countries that have universal health care. Don’t forget to turn the lights off in the club you are leaving, you were the last one there.

    • Jim Treacher

      Yes, thank you for saving us from those evil doctors, Obama.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Edwards/48507152 Jason Edwards

    If republicans have such great ideas and care so much about health care reform. Then why haven’t they done a thing in all the years they were in power? Health care in our country has always been a problem. It is not a recent undertaking.

    • logic

      Health care is a problem because of government involvement. Policies are not legally portable or available across state lines, government does not allow individuals to deduct all medical expenses, government regulations (funding the FDA, other “health” agencies, the myriad of costly rules the health industry has to pay and then passes along to consumers), and health insurance is not a true free market where competition drives costs down and keeps companies fighting for customers. Government regulation and bureaucracy is expensive. Nothing that I have seen in this plan addresses any of that because liberals refuse to believe that government is an enormous part the problem. They only want to demonize insurance companies, demonize anyone with money and elevate themselves to anointed, all-knowing saints coming to the rescue. They can’t fathom and certainly don’t care that THEY are the problem.

  • paramkanaadaa

    Jason,

    You don’t read much or travel a lot do you? Pity. What we have in the US is a lot of money being spent on medical research – with the hardest and most basic part of that being underwritten by the government – a lot of well trained doctors, very, very, insanely expensive hospitals, and rapacious health insurers. An anarchy like this doesn’t deserve to be called a system, and this is certainly not the world’s best healthcare system. Which would that be? Perhaps Cuba which spends about 1/10 per capita as us and delivers the same outcomes? Perhaps India where primary care is becoming affordable even for those who earn $2/day – or where the AIDS prevention program has been such a success that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is rewriting their manuals? Or is it Israel, Taiwan (single payer socialist) German and Japan (single payer with shorter wait times than ours) or France – where undocumented immigrants have health outcomes better than our middle-class? Obamacare is a small step and doesn’t go far enough, leaving the health insurance companies unfettered. But it is a step forward, long overdue in reversing the wasted decade gone by. Your analysis is so flawed that it is laughable coming from an MD. What a heroic and flawed assumption you make in comparing health expenditures of 1967 to today’s. So you are saying that Americans then and now suffered the same illnesses take the same treatments, and have the same outcomes. In other words there has been no progress at all? This would get you a failing grade in junior high! Oh the Heritage trained hacks!

  • loganthor

    I disagree that moral hazard is the cause of the skyrocketing health care cost. I believe the true cause is the continued and systematic abuse at the hands of government is the true reason. As seen recently by Mayo Clinic $870 Million dollar lost due to Medicare reimbursements, Walgreens refusal to accept Medicaid and the applied 21% cut to Medicare reimbursement that took effect at the first of this month. What you have seen is basic economics. The business takes the loss in revenue from Government and has to raise the price to Private just to survive.

    Now we stand at the edge of the cliff ready to hand the entire system over to the people that have been the real cause of the rising health care cost. But somehow, this time it will be better.

  • murrayabraham

    “… world’s premier health care system …”
    You haven’t traveled that much have you?

  • elektramourns

    This is a great day for America and for Dems. The GOP is really and truly a minority party, on the wrong side of history. And how does a party devolve into a minority? They do not have the people’s interests front and center.

  • ontherocks

    This was never really about health care or stemming it’s rising cost. It’s about what DC and especially dems really are for – more power over the majority of americans by expanding a runaway government with other people’s tax dollars.
    Until that is exposed and crushed this country will continue in a downward spiral towards bankruptcy.

    • logic

      Liberals (in both parties) do not like fiscal realities or civil liberties that stand in the way. They dismiss conservative thinking as uncaring, cold, and greedy because we dare question spending money that doesn’t exist or present liberty as something worth defending. They are OK with wealth redistribution or taking (stealing) money from one person or group to give to another for the “collective good”. They focus on the end (health care for all!) and dismiss the means (stealing from me to pay for it). They cannot see why we object and don’t play along. They don’t get that we hold our freedoms and the fruits of our labor so dear. They don’t get that using the government to force their will upon others corrupts culture and is immoral. They cling to their fairytale ideology in hypnotic unity. Nancy is their perfect leader, with the permanently fixed happy-pill grin and vague, dreamy talking points. Pesky things like deficits, debt, responsibility and sanity are just silly and ruin all the fun! Liberal ideology has brought us here but true conservatism will have to lift us back out.

  • 7734yeah

    That’s all you’ve got? Sounds like a child’s reply. That’s what happens when you let the children run things. But in November, Daddy’s going to come home and clean up the mess you’re making.

    • strawhat88

      “Daddy” couldn’t handle the mess he left last time he hung around for 8 years. I’m getting the impression that “Daddy” is full of sh!t.

  • strawhat88

    Looks like the McDonald’s in Washington DC just got an order for 212 WHAAmburgers and french cries.