One thing most Americans agree on
is that our health care
system needs an overhaul.
Some people believe the answer
is more money from Washington
and bureaucratic agencies
making sure everyone
is following the rules.
Others suggest we should import the kind
of government run models they
have in Europe and Canada.
A third option would
redirect our current system.
Putting patients and
doctors in the driver's seat
and making healthcare providers
and insurance companies
compete for customers.
As you weigh the options,
here are a few basic
facts you need to know.
Long before Obamacare came along in 2009,
Washington was already in the business
of picking winners and
losers in health care.
Shortly after World War II,
we began giving tax breaks to those
who got health care via their employer.
In the long run however,
the biggest winner was
the insurance industry.
As more and more people
became members of group plans
as opposed to purchasing
individual insurance.
More Washington meddling
occurred in the 1960s,
with the creation of
Medicare and Medicaid.
While created with good intentions,
these government programs have
skyrocketed in terms of cost
but have nosedived when it
comes to consumer choice.
Instead of allowing
individuals to decide where
and from whom they want
to get their medical care,
Washington makes that call.
Selecting various special interests
to qualify for those tax dollars.
And then came the mother
of all meddling, Obamacare.
With a huge push to not
only expand Medicaid
but to take over what was left
of the private insurance market,
through more government
mandates and regulations.
The result?
Premiums doubled in the first
four years of Obamacare.
Last year,
the average monthly premium
for individual insurance
was $476 per person per month
in the 39 states participating
in healthcare.gov.
But while premiums have gone up,
choices have gone down.
In more than 80 percent of
counties across the country,
there is only one or two health care plans
available on Obamacare Exchange.
That means millions of Americans
now have far fewer choices
when it comes to their doctor
and health care network.
Perhaps that is why less than half
of the 24 million people
projected to sign up
have actually done so.
And for the ones who have,
the vast majority, over 86 percent,
were put on Medicaid.
Which by the way,
doesn't insure they now have health care.
Because increasing numbers of doctors
and other medical providers
are no longer accepting Medicaid.
So what about trying out what
we've seen in other countries?
A full blown government
run health care approach.
Let's start close to home,
by considering our neighbors to the north.
When compared to 11 similar countries,
including the United States,
a recent study shows that whether
it's emergency room visits,
same or next day appointments,
seeing a specialist, or
getting elective surgery,
Canada's wait times are the worst.
In fact, in 2016,
Canadians waited an average of five months
for medically necessary
specialist treatments.
Maybe that's why almost 60,000 of them
visit the U.S. and other
countries each year
for medical care.
And speaking of other countries,
over in the United Kingdom,
where they've had 70 years to figure out
how to run a government
controlled health care system,
over 80 percent of doctors there
say their work places are understaffed.
That probably explains why
over 50,000 nonurgent surgeries
were canceled in 2018,
when their system was
overwhelmed by flu season.
So if more money and more
direction from Washington
isn't the answer,
and neither is putting everyone
in a European style
national health care system,
what is?
Well what if we tried the
completely opposite approach?
And put individuals and patients,
also known as consumers,
in the driver's seat.
As opposed to the government deciding
which medical and insurance
providers get your tax dollars,
you decide.
Think about it.
An industry after industry.
Where businesses have to compete,
what happens?
Choices and innovation increase.
Prices and other barriers
to access come down.
A similar approach needs to be taken
in reforming our healthcare system.
It won't happen overnight,
but even a small step
in the right direction
shows the possibilities.
Seven states that obtained
waivers from Obamacare mandates,
giving them the freedom
to try new approaches
are now projecting higher
enrollments in 2019,
at significantly lower costs.
30 percent lower in Maryland.
Almost 20 percent in Alaska and Minnesota.
And 15 percent in New Jersey.
And all the approaches used
to achieve these savings
relied on tools that helps those
with preexisting conditions
get access to care.
And that's just one
example of what can happen
when the operating
philosophy is more choices
in competition as opposed
to one size fits all.
Individuals and families
have different needs
and preferences when it
comes to most things in life.
Including their health care.
It's time our politicians
respect their wishes
and our laws allow more choice.
