Straight Platform Politics

The Free Market And Health Care – Part 1

The CATO Institute on Health Care Reform published the article “What Is the Free-Market Approach to Health Care Reform?” The article agrees that our health care system is in need of reform: “It costs too much. Too many people lack health insurance. And quality can be uneven.”

“But a government takeover of the health care system, as proposed by the president and some in Congress, would be a step in the wrong direction. Instead, we should pursue a uniquely American solution, one that builds on free markets, competition, and choice.”

The proposed solution lists seven reforms. We will look at each.

Reform 1. “Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health care plans and providers.” This would entail dismantling the huge amount of government legislation (both state and federal) that has denied individuals access to certain insurance providers and vice versa.

Reform 2. “Move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance.” As the article asserts, health insurance “should be personal and portable” and not controlled by governments or employers. Under our employer-based system, the true cost of health care is hidden from employees, employee choice of health care policies is limited, the self-employed are at a costly disadvantage, and if employees lose employment, they may become uninsured.  See The Four-Party Health Care System series

CATO, The CATO Institute on Health Care Reform, doctor-patient relationship, employment-based health insurance, enabling legislation, four-party health care system, free market, health, health care reform, health care system, health insurance, high-quality health care, insurance companies, portable health insurance, self-employed

The Four-Party Health Care System – Part 1

An article in the Summer 2009 issue of The Independent Review examined our nation’s four-party health care system. Charles Kroncke and Ronald F. White are the authors of “The Modern Health Care Maze: Development and Effects of the Four-Party System”.

The article states, “Our national health care system is so dauntingly complex that reform efforts seem hopelessly adrift.” The authors feel that reform efforts should begin with looking at health care stakeholders. The obvious ones are: first-party patients, second-party health care providers, third-party payers (private insurance companies and public governmental programs), and fourth-party employers providing health care insurance for their employees (who will become first-party patients).

Other stakeholders involved in our nation’s health care system include: scientists and researchers, research labs, colleges and universities, lawyers, law firms, unions, and professional societies. And we cannot forget all of us who “invest in mutual funds that hold stock in the health care sector.”

The authors point out that the fact that the “health care industry accounts for at least 14% of the gross domestic product (GDP),” illustrates just how complex our health care system is. It goes way beyond the doctor-patient relationship.

“In the United States, politics—that is, each stakeholder group’s capacity to influence powerful legislators—drives health care reform.” Health care has so many stakeholders that true and lasting reform seems out of reach.

Charles Kroncke, Ronald F. White, The Independent Review, The Modern Health Care Maze, doctor-patient relationship, first-party patients, four-party health care system, four-party payment system, fourth-party employers, gross domestic product, health care reform, health care stakeholders, second-party providers, third-party payers