A Voluntary FDA

On March 31, 2010, in Thoughts, by Matt

A Voluntary FDA would lower health care costs and give us access to better service and products.  For argument and research sake, I really recommend everyone watch Stossel and see how the FDA Kills far more than it saves.


The best point made is when a new drug is approved and everyone celebrates how it will save 50,000 people a year.  That means that for the 15 years of testing, it killed 750,000 by not being available.

The FDA should be voluntary just like Underwriters Laboratories or UL.  Who are they?  Look at nearly every single thing you plug in to the wall that is more than just a wire.  That charger is UL tested.  Everyone does it even though it is completely voluntary.


If the FDA were voluntary, anyone wanting only FDA approved would have that option.  It would be the Gold Standard of approvals.  If you are willing to go without the FDA it is your choice, some will some will not.  By having different voluntary levels of accreditation would allow us to judge how thoroughly tested it has been.  Liberals read this and say, “I would be smart enough to make a good decision but others are not”.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com

Response To Free Market Health Care.

On March 26, 2010, in Thoughts, by Matt

A fellow reader NTRWriter  wrote in my comments board in response to Why We Need More Health Care Reform and I thought he raised a few good points worth addressing.  I will slowly be winning him over to the correct view, check out his blog if you get a chance.

NTRWriter

There’s a lot of good research and analysis here, Matt. Well done. But your point about this program keeping down costs is a little weak. There is nothing here that keeps an insurance company from raising premiums, especially when dealing with a chronically ill patient. That $7500 deductible every year will do less for people with cancer who need several hundred thousand dollars worth of treatment annually. Plus, you’d still need to ban lifetime caps on benefits. And for people who are relatively healthy, why would they ever want to stop receiving 10,000+ dollars per year? Does this really encourage them to make more money, get educated or get a different job when they know that check is just going to disappear and they can just save it that way. The same, of course, can be said for people on welfare except welfare doesn’t roll into a savings plan. My point is, it’s still the government giving people money. Why doesn’t the gov’t just write us all a check every year? But if we stop paying taxes, it just ends any safeguards. Not only with the sick not get care, but they’ll be no money to mitigate that.

Health care is not something that can be easily handled by the free market. There are a lot of issues that just don’t work well. Pre-existing conditions, rescission, caps, preventative care. Also, the report you cited was for people on Medicaid WITH disabilities. I think the amount spent is much lower for low income residents who are in decent shape. Now compare receiving $5000 with a $7500 deductible. That’s quite a bit more in cost for the the patient.

Thanks for the read, though. I learn a little bit more everyday.

You bring up some excellent points, and health care is far to complex to solve in one quick post.

I will start with the catastrophic issue.  The reason Health Care premiums keep rising so fast is not because everyone is catastrophically ill.  That part of health care is far rarer and overall represents a vastly smaller number.

The reason costs are rising so fast is because the lower end expenses.  Consider if you have Medicare or Medicaid, you are one phone call away to getting a free 3k dollar power chair.  No questions asked and nothing out of pocket.  There are many that probably need a power Wheelchair, but I would guess most wouldn’t buy it if it were their own money.  A power wheelchair is one thing, a power chair is another.  Another example is going to an ER room for a cough rather than waiting to see a doctor.  The difference in cost between the two is thousands.  This is poor allocation of medical dollars.  Creating better decisions on the low end is what we need.

The second point I agree would be controversial, but consider the current incentive to get off medi*.   I would argue it is easier to create a lower scalable subsidy that can eventually phase out and get people off government assistance which must be the ultimate goal.

3rd you are correct about $11,000 being at the high end.  However it also shows how it costs $3,900 on average per young healthy person.  In this case consider my high deductible of a mere $1,500 and it costs me $103 per month.  Under my program I may only be given a credit for $3,000.  By continuing to be health in this example I would save $1,500 a year by lowering my medical expenses for being healthy.

We can have different tiered vouchers based on deductibles.

How Free Markets Handle – an answer to your questions

Pre-existing- conditions only exists if you jump around from insurance to insurance, this is why having an employer based policy is dumb.  You would never have a preexisting plan if you joined for example the Talkofliberty blog reader’s insurance plan as an individual at birth.  Free Market delivers however government restricts this from happening.

Rescission- this is a contract issue.  Government is supposed to protect the sanctity of a contract; this requires government to do its one job.  Not Free Markets fault if the contract states it will be covered and they do not honor a contract.

Caps- Everything must have a cap because there are not unlimited resources.  Allocating resources properly is important.   Currently plans covering large deductibles let’s say with a 2 million lifetime deductible plans are illegal.  The same policy that covers your first hundred dollars expense should not be required to cover you up to ten million dollars in expenses.  Free markets would provide such an additional plan where coverage would kick in after you hit hitting a 2 million dollar lifetime deductible, again Free Markets deliver, and government restricts.

Preventive Care – Today if you go to your doctor and suggest you will pay in cash, the cost of a regular doctors visit may only be $30 bucks.  Because government forces people pay for expensive premiums which covers these basic visits the cost shoots up to a $400 per month plan which covers preventive visits rather than a $100 dollar a month plan with high deductible.  In the Free Market Plan, I could visit my doctor at $100 dollars per visit every single month, and still be cheaper overall and I assume healthier.  Free Market Delivers another, government destroys another.

Matt

http://talkofliberty.com

I am going to go with my gut on this one. Everyone is trying to figure out why the heck student loan reform is in this Health Care Bill. I think I know the answer when I had an aha moment.  Now stay with me, but I am taking a guess at this one.

Every conversation I have heard about the reconciliation process is it can be used to reduce deficits. Everyone knows that cutting out the middle man was guaranteed to save a lot of money in the student loan process (it will continue to blow a massive education bubble, but that is besides the point). In political terms, I think this is like holding a wild trump card. At some point someone new that reconciliation requires deficit savings. By throwing in this student loan reform, it bumped up the ten year savings by billions.

My question, since I am just a regular guy is, does the 100 billion in deficit reduction over ten years come from student loan savings not Health Care savings? Is the student loan savings what the CBO scored and made this bill able to go through with reconciliation? If left out of the final bill, would this bill save Americans anything?

I think this Health Care Bill doesn’t reduce the deficit at all.  They have smoke and mirrors to make sure it happens.  Take away the 60 billion I have read student loan reform saves and this 940 billion dollar bill equals over a trillion.

We have been hoodwinked.  Well played Pelosi and Reed, and Obama, but I am calling you on it.

This whole thing is very fishy to me, I want to raise this flag first. Can someone answer these questions for me?

Please Digg this story if you think I am on to something.

Anyone reading this health care bill which was just posted online will quickly see just how scary this bill is.  Everything I keep reading keeps deffering all decisions to the Secretary of Health.  Every medical decision is going to be decided if it is fair.  The Secretary will have the power to literally run the entire Health Insurance industry.

I think it is quite clear we are actually getting a single payer system with this reform. Everything in health insurance will be regulated and you will see co-pays, deductables, coverage all determined by our new health Dictator.

On the practical side, I have a question for the bureaucrats,  it sounds great that all insurance will now have to cover everything right?  What happens if somone needs a surgery and there are two ways of performing it.  Option one is very expensive but uses the latest technology which makes the entire procedure pain free and easy.  Option 2 is an old technique that is far cheaper and often has far more complications in outcome.

Now that insurance companies will basically be zombies run by the dictator, there is no longer an incentive to offer the better coverage than other companies.  They will look at each case as an expense and opt for less costly.  They will opt of the lower quality of care since they have no pricing power and no ability to offer a different insurance product to their customers, and they will be the monopoly in charge due to these regulations, so you will have nowhere to get better care.

This Health Care Reform Bill is scary, just read it and ask yourself the simple question of how will the secretary of health our new dictator, know what is best for the 300 million people.  Make no mistake, this is Socialism, it is here, it is scary.

The CBO has returned with the estimated cost of the next ten years of health care reform.  A mere $940,000,000,000.00 dollars for ten years.  This is likely to be completely wrong and end up costing far more for Americans since it will destroy even more levels of competition through oppressive new regulations and mandates.

One overlooked fact regarding this comprehensive reform package is how it will basically cost $1 trillion dollars to cover an extra 31 million people.  I question the idea that those 31 million do not have coverage since half of them are young in between jobs youth who probably do not even need coverage.  Regardless, the average cost per person will be a staggering 3000 dollars per year for ten years to cover them for ten years, but the reality is it will cover them for 6 years meaning it is closer to $5,000 per person.  Keep in mind, half of this pool is a low risk pool with little cost to cover.

The second overlooked cost of HC reform is the fact that the trillion is the cost of 31 million extra to be covered.  What about the other 200 million people who already have insurance?  Democrats state that this will lower the cost of insurance for employers to pay for or individuals to buy.  I ask how?  This bill changes nothing regarding competition or reducing regulations which drive up prices.  The only thing in this bill is more coverage mandates.  This will no doubt cost everyone more in the bigger picture over the next ten years.  Let’s be extremely gracious to the democrats plan and only assume this bill adds additional costs of $100 dollars a year to everyone else,  it would add an additional 2 trillion dollars in cost.  This is an additional 2 trillion dollars that will pay for red tape not creating a job or healthier people.

Because there is nothing in this bill that increases competition and it was written by pharmaceutical executives, that means this bill can only lower costs through price controls which have never succeeded and always lead to rationing with less supply than demand.  This bill will most likely suck at least another 3 trillion dollars out of our economy and divert it to unproductive areas, lowering the overall capacity of wealth generation in our economy.  Small businesses will likely be crushed initially since it will takes months to find loopholes around regulations rather than pay for them.