Missing from the debate
Philip Marrone
Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Opinion
With the current battle over healthcare in Washington, many Americans believe they are fighting for some lofty ideal. Those in favor of the state medical coverage believe they are fighting corporate corruption that is jacking up skyrocketing costs, drawing upon the inherent righteousness of the United States government. Those opposed believe they are saving a free-market healthcare system. This is the full range of the mainstream argument and both are completely false.
The HMO System as we know it today was created by the United States Congress in its first attempt at universal healthcare with the HMO Act of 1973, which also mandated that businesses provide employees with HMO coverage. The tax code only allowed said businesses to deduct healthcare costs from their taxes, and not individuals. In other words, since the consumer was left out of the pricing scheme, the pricing mechanism was completely over-leapt. The patient has no power to negotiate price with the doctor because the doctor is charging the HMO for the service, not the patient. Without this free-market regulatory force, pricing has since skyrocketed into the unsustainable rate that we see today.
To many, a national health insurance provider appears to be the answer. We are being told that a "public option" will help to control costs, but since the public option is only a different method of payment, the fallacy of this reasoning is obvious once the reasons for the exploding costs are determined. A main contributor to exploding healthcare costs is in our tort laws. Doctors can be placed under excessive civil liability for almost any reason associated with their jobs. With the exception of organized crime and terrorist cell members, no other worker can be held as liable for simply performing their duties. Medical professionals have responded by increasing their rate, and since the doctor is charging a third party they charge the maximum that the HMO will allow. The obvious solution? Tort Reform. Doctors should only be liable for abuses of their positions, not for regular medical activity.
The HMO System as we know it today was created by the United States Congress in its first attempt at universal healthcare with the HMO Act of 1973, which also mandated that businesses provide employees with HMO coverage. The tax code only allowed said businesses to deduct healthcare costs from their taxes, and not individuals. In other words, since the consumer was left out of the pricing scheme, the pricing mechanism was completely over-leapt. The patient has no power to negotiate price with the doctor because the doctor is charging the HMO for the service, not the patient. Without this free-market regulatory force, pricing has since skyrocketed into the unsustainable rate that we see today.
To many, a national health insurance provider appears to be the answer. We are being told that a "public option" will help to control costs, but since the public option is only a different method of payment, the fallacy of this reasoning is obvious once the reasons for the exploding costs are determined. A main contributor to exploding healthcare costs is in our tort laws. Doctors can be placed under excessive civil liability for almost any reason associated with their jobs. With the exception of organized crime and terrorist cell members, no other worker can be held as liable for simply performing their duties. Medical professionals have responded by increasing their rate, and since the doctor is charging a third party they charge the maximum that the HMO will allow. The obvious solution? Tort Reform. Doctors should only be liable for abuses of their positions, not for regular medical activity.
Be the first to comment on this story