April 21, 2004
Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise
If your company subsidizes a large part of your health care plan, you’re lucky. Many companies can’t afford to do so. And forget trying to pay for it yourself. One of the companies I worked for went out of business. I had the option of paying for COBRA coverage, but it was so expensive I couldn’t take advantage of it. I was out of a job, for cryin’ out loud! Luckily, it was the 90s and I had another job within a couple weeks. Currently the average between jobs is about four months. That’s a long time to be without health care, especially if you have a young family or are being treated for a chronic condition.
In the run-up to the 2000 election, Al Gore used to talk a lot about the 41 million Americans who don't have health care. 41 million fellow Americans for whom getting sick or hurt can mean going broke. That number of people has now risen to 43.6 million.
Here's what I like about America: people don't mind if others have a better car, or take better vacations, or live in nicer houses. But we draw the line when a poor child with cancer gets worse medical treatment than a rich child with cancer. I've never met anyone -- Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever -- who feels that's right, but unfortunately that's what's happening right now.
So health care in America is too expensive for both private individuals and for businesses. What can we do about it? John Kerry's health care plan focuses on three goals: Increase coverage, decrease costs, and improve quality.
Increase Coverage
Kerry's plan has a number of proposals to increase health insurance coverage. That's a good thing, because when more people are covered, costs per person are lower. The plan allows individuals and companies to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It's the largest employer-sponsored group health care plan in the world, currently covering 9 million people. The government negotiates prices and services with health care companies, and they go along with it because they want access to those 9 million customers.
Increased coverage decreases the costs paid by health care companies for uninsured emergency patients; costs which are passed on to insurance companies and finally to you and me through higher premiums. Prices are also kept down because more people get preventative care, so diseases are caught early when they are easier and cheaper to cure.
Decrease Costs
In addition to the cost decreases inherent in increased coverage, Kerry's plan also targets three other areas: Prescription drugs, malpractice insurance, and hospital accounting. Kerry's plan supports investment in drug research, but closes loopholes that allow drug companies to "game" the patent system and keep prescription drug prices inflated. It also prescribes transparency in the drug supply chain to insure that bulk discount savings are passed on to patients.
Kerry's plan makes it harder to file frivolous lawsuits. This is the one part of is plan I have a problem with. Malpractice costs account for one half of one percent of health care costs, so even if Kerry completely banned all malpractice suits, it wouldn't make any difference in the cost of health care. However, his plan does include making information on malpractice suits public. Five percent of all doctors are responsible for more than half of all malpractice payouts. So making a doctor's malpractice records public will keep people from unwittingly submitting themselves to a high possibility of medical error.
The biggest savings will come from Kerry's plan to cut administrative costs in half by encouraging the use of computers and technology to handle paperwork. This has the added benefit of reducing the errors inherent in interpreting a doctor's bad handwriting. Kerry says, "While banks have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction using computers and technology, a single transaction in health care costs as much as twelve to twenty-five dollars -- and not a penny goes to care. Eliminating this inefficiency in our health system is... the only way to bring America's health care into the twenty-first century."
Improve Quality
When students enter medical school, they're told that, "half of what we will teach you is wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know which half." John Kerry's plan provides financial incentives to report performance data on quality and staffing levels to create benchmarks for providing better care. X-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, all these things are routinely prescribed, but there are no scientific guidelines as to whether they are effective in specific cases. Often they are completely unnecessary. Compiling data on the effectiveness of treatments and reducing unnecessary excessive health care could save about $70 billion every year while increasing quality.
Quality, affordable health care for every American can be a reality. There is no reason for 43.6 million people to be without health care. There is no reason for health care to be virtually unaffordable for individuals. There is no reason for health care to be prohibitively expensive for businesses. Hell, if everyone could afford health care, there would be no need for businesses to provide it. More than $1,000 of the price of every car and truck that rolls off the GM assembly line is health care. Imagine how competitive US companies could be if that overhead just disappeared.
John Kerry's health care plan benefits businesses and individuals. There's no reason not to make it happen.
Posted by American Pundit at April 21, 2004 08:44 AMThe bottom line in Private Health Care is that 40% of every dollar is swallowed by Insurance Companies. The pharmaceutical pigs have gotten into the same trough. Medicare’s administrative costs are 4%.
Posted by: Lars Olavson at April 21, 2004 12:35 PMThis is one of two major issues why I can’t see myself ever voting for the right, it just seems so unbeleavibly obvious that the american health system screws over a lot of people. if you go with out health coverage for the 4 months that you say is average for a worker to be unemployed, and you have a “previous condition” like cancer or ms or anything where you have continued cost, you very well might not be covered when you get back on insurense, you get screwed if you can’t cover the cost of cobra, kerry’s plan seems to adress some of my concerns, but then again so did clintons and well…..
Posted by: martiniwitz at April 21, 2004 01:17 PMNice write-up on Kerry’s plan.
Healthcare is certainly reaching a crisis stage in the U.S. between the lack of universal coverage and skyrocketing costs. To me the current system makes so little sense becuase it so directly contributes to both problems.
Why is it that health insurance is provided by one’s employer? What’s the logical connection here? They don’t provide mortgages. They don’t provide car insurance. They don’t provide other components of one’s personal life. With today’s lack of employment stability, it seems silly to connect the employer to the health plan. How disruptive to have to change health plans, find new doctors, etc. each time one gets laid off or chooses to take a new job. And why is the burden placed on companies to choose healthcare plans and pay for some of the costs? And then there are those who are not presently employeed, are self-employeed, work in jobs that do not provide coverage…
There needs to be some system that’s tied to some other institution than employer. If not a national health plan like those which seem to be successful in Europe and Canada, why not a neighborhood or city-based group plan?
The other problem is the skyrocketing costs. These seem to be occuring on all fronts—drug costs, malpractice insurance premiums, profit pressures for for-profit insurers. There needs to be some sort of over-reaching system that can contain all these costs in a manner that provides the best care for patients and protection for healthcare providers while reducing the unnecessary expenses resulting from bureaucracy, profits, etc. Patients shouldn’t be denied a procedure because it’s too expensive. Doctors shouldn’t be leaving practice because malpractice premiums eat so much of their income. The bureaucracy in the system needs to be reduced.
It’s not the beaurocracy in the system, blipsman. It’s the lack of bargaining leverage that patients have on their side. The current administration is firmly on the side of the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the AMA; all big Republican campaign financiers.
Fun fact: insurance companies are mostly exempt from monopoly laws. California got tougher on stopping price-fixing between health insurers and insurance premium prices immediately dropped 20%.
Not that it really matters… but I’m 17 and have diabetes. I know what it’s like, first hand, to have my health insurance switched multiple times. It really screws with health care… especially in the sense that it is important for me, as a diabetic, to have a relationship with my doctors. And since my father has died and my mother has had to resume working we’ve run into a lot of problems.
Bottom line, it’s all screwed up…. ANYWAY…
Wouldn’t, hypothetically, having a national health care plan open to everyone lower the doctor hierarchy? As in…the better doctors would have to take everyone… thereby hurting their practice (maybe?) and causing people who pay extra (because I’m assuming they’d have plans) to have to fo to the lower level doctors because the others are filled?
How would that work?
Posted by: Rachel at April 24, 2004 02:16 AMGood question, Rachel. It’s not really a national health care plan. It’s just a plan to make health care affordable.
If you wanted to, you could join the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program at an affordable price. It’s the same program that your congresspersons and the President use.
If you don’t want to do that, many of Kerry’s health care proposals will also make other programs, probably whichever one you use now, more affordable.
Kerry’s plan doesn’t create a new health care beaurocracy. The plan is to make health care more affordable, not to create some kind of mandatory system.
And Kerry’s plan doesn’t force doctors to do anything. Right now doctors choose to practice privately or as part of a medical group. Doctors who choose to participate in the FEHB medical group will get paid the same or more as the doctors who are currently caring of our representatives in the government.

