Choose the Free-Market Option 

        The free-market approach to health care reform is a much better idea than a government takeover of private healthcare in America. Insurance companies, like banks, should be solvent in order to meet their future obligations to policyholders when the need arises. There is a legitimate function for state regulators in that regard; however, state regulators have gone way beyond assuring the solvency of insurance companies. Regulators now dictate policy terms, set rates, kill competition, and impose millions of dollars in fines on insurance companies when any of the regulator’s arbitrary rules are not followed to the letter. I submit that regulators are responsible for the high insurance rates not doctors or insurance companies.

        Doctors who serve in the United States provide the best healthcare in the world. They are healers and perform a valuable function in society and deserve to earn a good living, and most do. This is not the case in Canada and Brittan where socialized medicine is perhaps responsible for more premature deaths than are the diseases of the body for which they need treatment. Doctors in those countries are few and far between. The ones who stay in practice are overbooked, overworked, and undercompensated. Patients in those countries wait for treatment for months and years and sometime die due to the delay. In some areas in Canada to obtain a family doctor one has to win a lottery.

        Insurance rates in the U.S. are high, but government healthcare is not the answer. One very simply fix to lower rates is to limit malpractice claims. Often they are settled before trial, and more often than not, are resolved in the doctor’s favor. Baseless claims add billions to the cost of medical care every year. Law suits are expensive to defend, and they require the doctor to take many hours of time away from healing their patients.  Trial lawyers are the largest contributors to the Democrat party, which is why the Obama administration refuses to limit malpractice awards. As a consequence a doctor’s rate for professional insurance is a six figure cost per year. It is a terrible waste of limited resources.

        Government takeover of private healthcare is a step in the wrong direction. Instead we should be talking about building a free market for healthcare. Americans would benefit from more competition and more choices. Employer-provided healthcare is not portable. If the employee leaves the company, he or she will be forced to pay very high rates because the industry is not set up to cover individuals. This can change. It is possible in a free market to provide affordable healthcare.

        Insurance should be a personal right and it should be portable. Insurance can belong to the individual and not to the employer. In a free market individuals will have a wide range of personal choices when deciding what policy is right for them. At the present time state regulators limit those choices by approving a few costly plans, and by not allowing consumers to cross state lines to find the best policy for themselves. In one study, if consumers were allowed to shop for insurance out of state, 17 million more Americans would be covered by insurance without it costing the taxpayer one cent.

        Neither Congress or the President, nor a bureaucracy in Washington D.C. can possibly know what is best for each American. Government run benefit programs are already in debt and failing. It should be obvious that a government run healthcare system that is nearly 20% of the economy will be an even greater failure.

        One change that is easy to make is to give tax credits to individuals who purchase healthcare. Just as private retirement plans are tax exempt, healthcare savings plans can be created to allow tax free dollars to stand ready to pay for future medical emergencies or co-payments associated with private insurance. Co-payment is not a bad thing because when the consumer has to invest in treatment, the consumer will be more likely to control costs and not abuse the system. The result will be lower premiums.

        A government run healthcare system creates a moral hazard because, although it is certainly not free to taxpayers, there is no motivation for the consumer to control costs since the consumer has no investment in the treatment. After all taxpayers will be picking up the bill.

        One final suggestion, medical doctors treat people, and people are the same in every state. There is absolutely no reason why medical doctors should not be allowed to cross state lines if they choose to do so without having to apply for another license.

        The economy is very bad, but it will recover eventually, but more important than the health of the economy is the nation’s healthcare. The Obama administration is about reform healthcare forever, and not for the better.