The Medical Freedom Channel

“One reason why our healthcare system has evolved to its current condition is a series of legislative steps in the post World War II period designed to remove the profit motive from virtually every aspect of medicine. Doctors are trained in nonprofit medical schools. Until recently most hospitals were nonprofit, and the health insurance industry was dominated by nonprofit entities (mainly Blue Cross/Blue Shield) as well. One consequence of the lack of a profit motive is an industry with too few entrepreneurs and too little innovation, at least with respect to cutting costs and meeting patient needs. In those areas in which the profit motive is still the major driving force (for example, the manufacturer of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals) innovation and change are rampant. But in the area of solving patient problems, cost-reducing innovations have been few and far between.” (posted 11/17/08; originally published, 1992)

http://www.ncpa.org/w/w56.html

“During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major-party candidates have proposed health plans intended to alter the way the federal government deals with health insurance. Given rising medical care spending and insurance premiums, and the fact that one in six Americans lacks public or private health insurance, it is no wonder that this has emerged as an issue. It is also no wonder that each candidate’s plan tries to cast its scheme as much superior in all aspects to that of his opponent. In this paper I begin with the premise that neither ideal focus nor good implementation are likely to reside in one place. I try to specify some features of both plans that are promising and would work better together than separately. However, I do not take the overly simplified view that you can put together a plan with some aspects from Column A and others from Column B, as if complementarity or mutual incompatibility did not exist — they do. And some ideas in each plan have little merit no matter what. I also do not imagine that everyone will agree that all elements of a compromise will be best from their perspective; there will be a strong temptation to rehash the old arguments in favor of what one likes and proclaim oneself unconvinced about alternatives — to revert to the partisanship that has so far prevented action. And there will still be some trade-offs that depend on value judgments. However, I close with the outline of a program that embodies what I regard as an appropriate give and take.” (09/16/08)

http://tinyurl.com/5672va

“Two statistical ‘events’ catalyze a lot of health reform debate every year: the Census Bureau’s annual estimate of those without health insurance, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) actuary’s estimate of the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) devoted to healthcare. … When statistics fail to confirm further deterioration, as they did this year, it creates a curious uncomfortable pause in the narrative of decay. Nothing here is meant to minimize the extent of this problem. It isn’t acceptable for a wealthy country like ours to have 45.6 million uninsured people. … Yet it is interesting what the detailed data show us about the changing face of the uninsured.” [editor’s note: Once again, that bogus “45 million uninsured” figure is raised, undercutting the rest of the piece’s message; 0therwise, though, a good analysis of the problem - SAT] (09/30/08)

http://tinyurl.com/3ewxv9

“The logo [see article] is not a satire — it’s posted to the 9th Annual Pharmaceutical Regulatory and Compliance Congress and Best Practices Forum website. Critics of ‘organized medicine’ claim modern healthcare is an unholy alliance between greed-driven drug producers and insurance companies, graft-taking legislators and government regulators, grant-dependent medical schools, overhead-burdened physicians and hospital administrators, interest-conflicted scientific research institutions—and their attorneys. The logo for this annual conference contains a symbol for every criticism: The balance of modern medicine is money against science and the amount of drugs that can be manufactured and poured into patients through hospitals and HMOs. By making certain medical procedures—such as vaccinations, hospital births and batteries of tests and diagnoses-dependent treatments—mandatory, the scales can be tipped in favor of money.” (09/08 issue)

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080914.htm

“In the United States, the authority to regulate medical professionals lies with the states. To practice within a state, clinicians must obtain a license from that state’s government. … One view is that state licensing of medical professionals assures quality. In contrast, I argue that licensure not only fails to protect consumers from incompetent physicians, but (by raising barriers to entry) makes healthcare more expensive and less accessible. … Consumers would benefit were states to eliminate professional licensing in medicine and leave education, credentialing, and scope-of-practice decisions entirely to the private sector and the courts.” [editor’s note: Again, not exactly an “archival” piece, but it isn’t current, either, and it expresses well one of our major contentions about healthcare reform — the world’s most exclusive trade-union is not part of the solution - SAT] (posted 10/12/08, originally written 09/17/08)

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9640

“Lennie Underwood suffered from chronic pain for years after falling down the stairs at home and breaking her sacrum, the thick bony structure at the base of the spine that is connected to the pelvis. Her injury was completely disabling, and the pain persisted despite visits to a half-dozen specialists and surgery to remove the broken bone fragments. … Today, she gets relief from an electronic device the size of a stopwatch that neutralizes pain signals at their source. The device, called a neurostimulator, is implanted surgically beneath the skin near her hip. It works by sending low-voltage electrical impulses directly to targeted nerves peripheral to her spinal cord.” (09/04/08)

http://tinyurl.com/48wjus

“While well-intentioned people are pushing for single-payer health care in the U.S., it’s important to view the plan from the perspective of patients’ choice and providers’ freedom. Here are some serious consequences that would result from enactment of H.R. 676, the ‘United States National Health Insurance Act’: * Mandatory Participation. Single-payer health insurance would be mandatory for everyone living in the U.S. … * Mandatory Registration. Individuals and families would be required to fill out a United States National Health Insurance application at a health-care facility. Anyone who sought healthcare but had not registered would have to do so upon seeking treatment. * Outlaws Private Insurance for Covered Services. H.R. 676 states, ‘It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.’” [editor’s note: Lest we forget how restrictive this proposal was, and still is, compared with others that permit personal choice! - SAT] (07/08)

http://forhealthfreedom.org/Newsletter/July2008.html#Article2

“It wasn’t exactly man-bites-dog news when word came this week that the number of Americans without health insurance has continued to climb. The number reached 46.6 million in 2005 — up from 45.3 million in 2004 — according to the Census Bureau. [editor’s note: As we now know this number was horrendously inflated to support their agenda - SAT] At the same time, the percentage of workers with employer-based coverage continues to decline. These trends will continue until Congress comes to grips with the changing dynamics of the health insurance market. The current system, which is dominated by tax-favored coverage offered through the workplace, has made health insurance affordable for middle-class Americans and made practical sense when workers stayed with one employer until retirement. But today’s workforce is much different. Fewer of us stick with one job or work for one employer throughout our careers. Meaning, each time we change jobs, our health plan changes, and probably so do our doctors. Fewer employers, especially those with small businesses, can afford or offer coverage.” [second note: This is two years old and counting, but the wisdom just gets more obvious - SAT] (originally posted 08/31/06, reposted 09/15/08)

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/opinion/stories/0831edequal.html

“A recent study found one in four uninsured Americans eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) fail to take advantage of those programs. ‘The stigma of being enrolled in a public program along with the difficulty in getting, and staying, enrolled in these programs are the main reasons why people don’t take advantage of the opportunities,’ said Julie Schoenman, director of research and development at the National Institute for Health Care Management, which released the report. ‘Signing up for Medicaid and SCHIP can require too much paperwork and be quite difficult,’ Schoenman continued. ‘States can make it more or less difficult for people to sign up depending on how much money they have to fund these programs.’” [editor’s note: Not sure how I missed this initially; better late than never! - SAT] (07/01/08)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23436

“Consumers, not just in the United States but in all developed countries, are demanding a much greater role in decisions involving their healthcare. People can find on the Internet a wealth of information about diseases, diagnoses, and treatment options, but all too often they must fight bureaucracies and paperwork all along the way. Studies have shown outcomes improve if people are given the tools, information and incentive to manage their own healthcare. … We need a system that allows people to have health insurance that is portable, that they can own and control, and that they, and not a politician or a human resources department, decide is right for them and their families.” [editor’s note: Amen! If we ran this before, it is well worth a reprise! - SAT] (07/01/08)

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23432