A Strong Case against Health Care “Reform” – 14 Key Points (Part 3)

This week, President Obama is once again pushing hard for so-called health care “reform.”  Such health care “reform” might better be called government-controlled or government-dictated health care for every American.  With all the debate going on, let’s summarize a strong case against so-called health care “reform.”

In Part 1, the 14 Key Points against government-controlled health care are listed.  In Parts 2, 3 and 4, reasons for each point are given.

It Means Some Health Insurance Companies Will Go Out of Business.  Under health care “reform,” the government will control both health care costs and benefits.  That’s an impossible environment for a business to operate within.  Business decision-making is severely limited under the control of government.  Take Massachusetts and its universal health care program.  The Medical Loss Ratio is 112%.  This means for every $100 in premiums, the health insurance companies pay out $112 in benefits.  How long can a company stay in business under those circumstances?  How long can they tolerate such losses?

It Means Many Good Doctors and Practices Will Close Down.  Good doctors are already leaving health care because they are being paid too little under Medicare rules.  More doctors will leave under health care “reform” because it just doesn’t pay.  In economics, we know that price controls lead to shortages and rationing.  We can expect a shortage of well-qualified doctors under government-controlled health care “reform.”

It Means Lower Health Care Quality.  Why? To start with, there will be fewer well-qualified doctors.  Also, there will be fewer market incentives for innovation in medical products and services and delivery options.  There will be less incentive to invest in new drugs and therapies.  As with current government regulations and mandates, there will also be more bureaucratic emphasis placed on quantity over quality.  Plus, cost-cutting decisions will eliminate newer technologies and more expensive (and higher quality) procedures from being available to all Americans.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that President Obama’s virtual colonoscopy procedure, an approach that has advantages over traditional colonoscopy, was rejected for Medicare patients.  Will health care “reform” also mean a two-tiered health care system with better health care only for government officials?  Finally, how can about $500B in Medicare cuts improve health care for our seniors? 

It Means Fewer Innovations in Health Care Products, Services and Pricing Models as well as Health Insurance Products.  When the government controls an industry, all the advantages of a Free Market are damaged or completely lost.  With economic freedom (as opposed to government regulations and mandates), come lower prices, more competition, more innovation, and higher quality. 

It Means Fewer Health Care Choices for Patients.  Yes, with health care “reform” we can expect fewer doctors to choose from; fewer medical procedures will be available to choose from (or quite possibly, medical procedures which will be dictated by government-bureaucrats primarily concerned with holding costs down); fewer health insurance options; and eventually, a single-payer, socialized health care system.

It Means Health Care Rationing by Government Bureaucrats.  Government-controlled programs often lead to shortages and rationing.  Examples abound all over the world.  Look at the dire health care shortages and rationing of health care in Canada and Great Britain.  The more complete the government control, the greater the likelihood of shortages and rationing.  If you eliminate economic freedom and substitute government control, you inevitably have shortages and rationing in any industry.