There are those who believe that if we loosen regulations and bring about some simple tort reform, the health insurance industry will be able to operate more efficiently, which will keep costs down and give everyone better health care through the magic of the free market. In other words, deregulation will allow the insurance industry to place people's health needs over profits, the current health crisis will be solved and the United States will be turned into a magical land filled with taffy and gumdrops.
You'll excuse me for laughing.
Expecting the insurance industry to reform itself after government deregulation is like placing a defenseless, drugged-up polar bear in front of Vice President Cheney and expecting him not to shoot it just because the species is endangered. You can't expect the scorpion not to string.
Noting my glib remarks about camps two and three, clearly I am for a greater government presence in providing health care. What we have here is a moral imperative. Governments have the absolute responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of their citizenry. Period.
But Roddy, America has a free market! The market will protect us from everything!
That's a nice thought, but unfortunately, the current health care system is hardly a free market. That's why millions are uninsured. That's why costs are skyrocketing. That's why many Americans with adequate health insurance are denied claims.
Under a free market, quality is derived from the ability of consumers to compare products knowledgeably. However, due to a lack of comprehensive information about quality care, this mechanism of the market is removed.
It is unreasonable to expect patients to comparison shop for doctors in the middle of a health crisis. Also, the complexities of choosing an insurance plan, something unavailable to the large majority of Americans, make it a hell of a lot harder than simply buying a car. The nuances and tiny print make it skill-prohibitive for the average consumer to make a completely informed decision about who insures them.
And because insurance companies often decide which doctors you can and cannot see, consumer choice in health providers is rendered null. The free market cannot work under these circumstances, so competitive pricing and quality controls are rendered as obsolete as a horse gone to the dog food factory.
Clearly, the market does not protect the consumer or patient. Yet, we still pump $2 trillion into the health care industry. This is where the true appeal of a government system comes out: it's cheaper.
I'll admit, taxpayers would absorb the cost burden of a national system. But we already do under the private system. We all pay (usually through decreased wages) for insurance. The reason that a government system would be less expensive, and thus save the U.S. people money, is that administrative costs would plummet.
Assuming we still pay doctors the same and spend the same on prescription drugs, and even if our administrative costs equal the most expensive comparable system (Canada), it would still decrease total spending by 17 percent, or around $340 billion.
As a result, the actual cost to taxpayers would go down. So, savings from lifting the health care burden on employers would be passed on to the individual at a level above the tax increase, making the move cost-saving.
Furthermore, because under a government health system all Americans would be comprehensively covered, access to preventative or continual care would be granted, which would decrease the number of emergency surgeries; a good thing, since preventative care is exceptionally cheaper than emergency care.
Roddy Flynn is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.