Weighing in on the Health Care Debate
By George K. Phillips
The health care debate has captivated the nation this summer as members of Congress travel to “town hall” meetings across the country to explain and discuss a complex health-care reform bill that is more than 1,000 pages long.
At the heart of the debate is an effort to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who currently lack it while improving, or at the very least not diminishing, the current-health care system. While “shouters” at the meetings have garnered much of the media attention, I would like to offer a few of what I hope are “reason-minded” critiques of the current bill and suggestions for improving the overall system.
To assess the long-term implications of the legislation before Congress that could create a new, large government bureaucracy, we must consider the state of our national government and economy.
The federal government has racked up an astounding $11 trillion national debt and will run an estimated $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year. The Social Security and Medicare trustees report for 2009 estimates the Social Security program will start running deficits in 2016 and states that the Medicare program is already running deficits.
With these staggering deficits and baby boomers soon moving into retirement and raising Social Security and Medicare costs even more, does it make sense to add another large government entitlement program? Even if the proponents do not intend for this new program to ration health care, wouldn’t health-care rationing result if the government simply can’t afford to pay the bills?
The plan relies on penalties and taxes on small businesses to enforce implementation at a time when unemployment is hovering near 10 percent. In 2005, the most recent year it has data available for, the Small Business Administration estimated small businesses were responsible for creating nearly 80 percent of new jobs. How can we pull out of this recession and grow the economy if we are placing additional restrictions on already overburdened small businesses?
I believe the plan should take the opposite approach: instead of taxes and penalties, give small businesses and their employees tax credits to purchase health insurance. Current estimates show small businesses pay an estimated 18 percent more for health-care benefits than larger firms. Small businesses should be allowed to partner together, amassing a larger group of employees together to compete for better plans that would enable them to lower their costs and expand benefits.
Helping small businesses pay for help insurance would help cover a large number of the uninsured. Efforts could be made to get the remaining uninsured into Medicaid rather than creating an entirely new program.
A key part of the health care-reform debate that is not even being considered in the current legislation is medical malpractice reform. Frivolous lawsuits impose billions on the U.S. economy each year. These lawsuits dramatically raise medical malpractice insurance as well as health-care costs for all Americans and cause doctors to practice defensive medicine.
Capping these suits and reforming a broken part of the health-care system that currently allows OB-GYNs to be sued up to 21 years after they have delivered a baby would greatly reduce costs for all Americans.
Health care can be reformed without creating a new big-government program. Empowering small businesses to better provide health insurance and lowering overall costs through medical malpractice reform should be part of the solution.
