Why Obama must be stopped on healthcare

I watched the hearings last week where Obama met with both Republicans and Democrats in an attempt to gain common ground and to push his leftist healthcare agenda. There was no common ground that I could detect. The divide went to the core of how each party views the central role of government. The Republicans had little interest in having the US government massively expanded in an attempt to provide premium healthcare to every “warm body” in the US.

One of the democratic congressmen most illustrated the deep divide with his comments. The congressman said that health care is analogous to discrimination in that certain Americans get health care while others do not, (this is not true in principal) thus certain Americans are “victims of discrimination” in the United States because they don’t receive free health care.

Nothing could be more preposterous. Does this congressman also believe that unequal income levels in the US are evidence of discrimination? How about the quality of an individual’s car? Is an old car versus a new Mercedes evidence of discrimination? How about housing, bank accounts, property in general?

This is a scary leftist premise, and has been tried many times throughout history when the left gains control of the government. I am sure that the congressman would find a group of fans in the Bolsheviks of the October revolution. All people were forced to be THE SAME by law in Russia in 1917. History is very clear on this subject: Everyone becomes uniformly POOR as a result of leftist government action.

What amazes me is that leftist experiments continue to be promoted from time to time in government! I realize these leftist ideas have some popular (foolish) appeal, but to my knowledge none have ever worked!

Leftism causes poverty
Free market solutions cause prosperity

Can anyone show me an example of a leftist experiment ever working? I don’t know of a single one that has ever worked. I do however know of many free market solutions that have escalated the lives of common citizens. Since China adopted free market economics I believe that 300 million people have been brought into the middle class in China as a result of free market economics being implemented. Mao’s leftist policies caused 100’s of millions of people to live in poverty and government enslavement while Deng’s free market policies have caused 100’s of millions of Chinese to be vaulted into prosperity and freedom. Let me think Mr. Obama, which way should the US be moving?

Leftist socialized health care solutions in the US must be stopped.

Free market Health Care Solutions must be embraced in the US and most importantly, “deregulation of health care” needs to be adopted. (See my other blogs on this subject.)

Health care price escalation: Deregulation is the ONLY answer

For those of us who are old enough to remember, airline travel was unaffordable for most people up until Ronald Reagan got elected President. What did Reagan do to make airline travel affordable for most people? He deregulated transportation in the US. Before transportation was deregulated in the US, airfares were regulated, union wages were priced into the airfares, and airline seat prices went up continuously. Once Reagan ordered deregulation of transportation, Southwest Airlines found ways to cut seat prices (as did other cut rate airlines) and prices came down. "Cut rate seat prices" were NOT LEGAL under the old system of regulated transportation. Under deregulation, whoever could deliver the lowest cost product got the business.

You can only expect higher prices in a regulated monopoly environment. You can however expect creative competitition and lower prices in a "deregulated" environment. How does airline travel and transportation deregulation relate to our current debate on health care? Economics 101: Health care in the US is a regulated monopoly. Expect higher health care prices until we deregulate health care in the US. Deregulation is the ONLY answer to health care price escalation. Without free and open competition there will be ONLY one price direction, up.

I hate to use this next example to illustrate my point, but this is a pretty powerful case in point:

Marijuana in California is now legal. As amazing as it may sound, we now have "witch doctors" in California prescribing marijuana for just about every ailment imaginable. You can have a hang nail and one of these clowns will write you a prescription for marijuana (for a $100. fee of course.) OK, so what is the point? The point is that pot prices in California have collapsed because the monopoly is now gone. Realize that to make marijuana illegal under the old "narcotics regulation" system, the pot dealers operated under a de facto monopoly. In that case it was not the FDA protecting the dealers from competition, it was the DEA protecting the dealers from competition. Different federal agencies, same affect on prices. I hope people take this example seriously because the message is very strong. Do you recall the scene in the movie, "American Beauty" where Ricky Fitz is telling Lester Bernum how much his pot cost? I believe it was $1100. From what I understand, that same quality pot is available today "over the counter" in LA for about $100. What has changed? Answer: The market has become deregulated thus bringing in many new competitors. Prices of any product can be expected to drop in a deregulated environment.

This next example I had the pleasure of seeing first hand on a trip to China.

China has what is considered "universal health care". Do they really? Well probably yes, but not on the level that you and I would consider acceptable. How is it different? Well, when you see a doctor in China, chances are good you are actually seeing a paramedic. What if you REALLY need to see a doctor in China? They will probably let you see a doctor. The point is that most of the health care work is being done by field paramedics and practitioners and not doctors. How does this apply to the discussion of health care in the US and my argument that deregulation is the ONLY answer? Well, how can you expect health care prices to come down in the US if you hand a monopoly to prescribe medication to ONLY doctors? Doctors have a government issued monopoly to prescribe medication in the US and as such, we have no choice but to pay their prices! This is a classic example of a monopoly at work. Expect higher prices until this monopoly is broken. Can the paramedics in China prescribe medication? Probably yes, but more importantly, most of the medications that people need are sold over the counter so that the common person has access to medicine without paying someone dearly to "prescribe". Can you sue these "field paramedics" in China when their medical advice doesn't work out correctly? I assure you that you cannot sue these people for assisting you, regardless of the outcome. There is a very real message to be learned here from China. Tort reform would go a long way in the US in solving our health care crisis. (More details on tort reform below.) Again, deregulation of health care in the US needs to take some HUGE lessons from China.

The next example is concerning the drug company monopolies in the US.

I have a friend who is a pharmacist in Los Angeles. This pharmacist told me that he has checked the prices of his drugs in Canada and found that the Canadian product is about 25% the price that the US drug companies charge! He told me further that it is "illegal" for him to sell the Canadian product. (He claims that he looked into selling the Canadian drugs but ran into a serious legal blockade.) OK, so the US has given a monopoly to US drug companies to sell drugs for 4 times what the foreign product costs!? Yes. This is absolutely amazing to me, but appears to be very true. Another example of how we can only expect higher prices until we deregulate medicine and allow the foreign drug products to be sold in competition with the US drug products. Perhaps if the US drug companies were forced to compete with the foreign drug makers, they would lower their prices.

This next example is concerning the legal system in the US and how it relates to health care prices.

Realize that legal contingencies are illegal in most of the world. Legal contingencies are illegal in Japan and in most of Canada. The rest of the world cannot believe that we have a system in the US that actually incentivises attacks on one another. So how does this issue affect the health care debate? Well here is a good example: I have a doctor friend who told me that he recommends procedures EVERY DAY that are probably not necessary. Why? Because in that one chance in 1000 that the patient may have something REALLY wrong the doctor may be subject to a legal attack. From his perspective, why take the chance? For anyone who has ever been "in the cross hairs" of a legal attack, this doctor cannot be blamed for operating defensively in our predatory legal environment. I drive to work and see advertisements on the back of buses by lawyers looking for plaintiffs and lawsuit targets. I go to Las Vegas and see commercial after commercial on TV of lawyers looking for plaintiffs and new targets to attack. Eliminating legal contingencies in the US would cut health care costs enormously, but just eliminating the threat of attack would influence doctors to prescribe fewer procedures. Obama has said publicly that "tort reform" would only save 5% of health care costs. This is not the case. 5% savings would probably represent cheap malpractice insurance avoidance. 5% would just be the beginning. The real savings would be in procedures that would not be prescribed just to avoid litigation. Deregulation of health care must include some form of protection from liability so that the doctors and the medical establishment are motivated to be at all cost conscience. Now the incentive is very much in the opposite direction.

This next example is very personal, but may be the best argument of all for deregulation of health care in the US.

I recently needed back surgery. I am fully covered by Anthem Blue Cross in California, but the surgery I wanted (and concluded that I needed) was not available in the US. The surgery is a disk stabilization procedure called PercuDyn, and is used to correct a condition called "Degenerative Disk Disease". The PercuDyn company is a US based company but because of "regulation" has not been able to get the procedure approved "yet" in the US. They claim that the "clinical trial" process in the US will cost them over 70 million dollars and as such, they have chosen to get approval abroad. The long and the short of it is that I got my surgery in Mexico by a surgeon who has done over 300 of these surgeries and with great success. (My back pain is GONE at last! This sounds like a PercuDyn commercial.) So what is the point with respect to deregulation of health care? Well, why do I need to go to Mexico to get my back surgery performed when I am insured in the US? The reason is regulation. Get the FDA off the back of the medical device makers and their product will be cheaper, and AVAILABLE in the US! Further, (Please focus on this next point:) when I asked Anthem Blue Cross to assist me in my $11,000. surgery in Mexico, they refused. Realize that the same surgery in the US would have cost Anthem Blue Cross close to $30,000.! (If it were available.) Unbelievable. They insisted that I get the $30,000. product! I spent my own money and purchased the surgery in Mexico for $11,000.

Ok President Obama, so what do we need to do to solve this problem? Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate. If the US Government wanted to bring down the cost of heath care over night all they would need to do is insist that insurance companies pay for either the US medical procedure OR pay for the same foreign procedure if the patient were willing. The competition from New Delhi India alone would be formidable. I know because I researched India for my back surgery. If the US providers needed to compete with for example Shanghai China medicals clinics, you would see procedure prices drop FAST. Prices would drop under the weight of the new foreign medical competition. Further, China would quickly set up clinics to handle the US load. Did this happen to bring down the cost of clothing at Wal Mart to struggling families in the US? It certainly did, and the same affect would happen to health care prices if we had the sense to properly deregulated it in the US.

Common Sense Health Care Solutions: ER doctors ALREADY know the answer

I recently had a conversation with an ER doctor (emergency room doctor) concerning the health care debate happening now in Washington. The ER doctor gave me his opinion as follows:"The answer is totally obvious. Today in the US the bulk of uninsured patients are seen in emergency rooms across the country. About 90% of the work we do for these patients could be handled by the military medics coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States should allow these guys to set up small clinics in every nook and cranny of the US to handle this 90% of the uninsured 'front line' medical work load. The 10% of cases these medics cannot handle could be 'kicked upstairs' and referred to a local doctor or to a local ER."The doctor went on to tell me that these clinics would probably charge about $10. to see a patient, AND they would be a completely privatized solution to the problem of treating 'front line' medical cases of the uninsured in the US. Further he stated:"For these clinics to work in the US, the government would need to give these medics and their clinics immunity from lawyers looking for contingency targets." The doctor asked me, "Have you noticed that Vietnamese entrepreneurs have set up 'finger nail painting shops' all over California? Given a conducive regulatory environment for opening small 'medic run medical clinics', you'd see an explosion of activity in setting up 'front line' medical clinics WITHOUT one dime being spent by the federal or state governments."The conversation progressed to the subject of medications that the medics would need to perform their functions. The doctor continued:"MOST of the medications that would be used by these medics (for their 90% of the medical work load) can be sourced over the counter today, WITHOUT PRESCRIPTION in Mexico. Realize that literally MILLIONS of uninsured people drive every month to the Mexican boarder to buy their medication over the counter in Mexico. Why can't there be a section of the local CVS Pharmacy that dispenses Mexican medications, available without prescription, as is the case in Mexico? This is a free country, and as such, nobody would be required to buy the Mexican product. But what about the uninsured patient who today drives to Mexico to buy his/her medications? An uninsured patient should be able to pay $10. for a visit to a medic run 'front line' clinic in Los Angeles (for example) to treat his daughter's ear ache (for example). The medic would look in the child's ear and suggest going to the local Longs Drug store to buy say the Mexican children's penicillin. Problem solved and WITHOUT a visit to an emergency room and without a dime being spent by the state and federal government."The doctor went on to ask me if I had any idea how many foreign paramedics would come to the US to set up these clinics if this entrepreneurial arrangement were available, and if they were protected from liability while treating people? He said that there would be a "gold rush" of paramedic opportunity seekers from say India and/or the Philippines to set up these clinics. Rural and inner city 'front line' health care would suddenly become a reality and WITHOUT a new load on the state and federal governments.OK, so I have one more story which illustrates the issues addressed above by the emergency room doctor, and how the ER doctor's ideas could have averted a major medical disaster which happened to a person very close to me. This patient is a close personal friend of mine:For some number of years I have known a young woman who worked as a checker at a local Shell gas station. This woman is an immigrant from El Salvador and essentially worked for some years at minimum wage and without health insurance. This woman is a perfect example of how the ER doctor's 'solution' to the nation's health care problem could have saved a precious young life. So in the course of daily conversation this woman revealed to me that she had high blood pressure. To say "high" is an understatement. It turns out this woman had blood pressure in the range of 200/120 which put her at risk of many ailments to say the least. I'm not a doctor, but I advised her that she MUST get this problem treated, and I was rebuffed by the statement that she was not insured. I told her that the problem was too scary to let slide, and I told her that she should go to either a "free clinic" or a local emergency room and find out what medication was appropriate to bring down her blood pressure. Then I advised her that she can drive to Tijuana Mexico (about a 3 hour drive from here) and buy the medication she needed over the counter and without prescription. Problem solved I thought. Well, this gal did exactly what I recommended and for a time she in fact had brought her blood pressure under control. Then came the high gasoline prices of a couple of years ago. I had a conversation with this gal at the time and she informed me that she had stopped taking her blood pressure medication because the gasoline prices made the trip to TJ too expensive!Result: At 32 years old this woman had a massive stroke, a bleed in her brain which landed her in an intensive care hospital room coma for approx. 3 months. Amazingly she survived the stroke, but in a considerably diminished condition. If I had to guess, the taxpayers of the State of California paid in excess of 200 thousand dollars to keep this woman in intensive care for 3+ months.This woman's stroke and the associated expense could probably have been avoided.Opinion: Why did this have to happen to my El Salvadoran friend? Why can't we implement the ideas above and LARGELY solve the problem once and for all for the uninsured, and avoid the associated expense now born by the taxpayers? Why did the State of California taxpayers have to shoulder 200 thousand plus dollars in expenses when this stroke could have been avoided with the simple preventative medicine solution outlined above? Why couldn't my El Salvadoran friend buy her Mexican blood pressure medication from the local Longs Drug store "over the counter" and avoid a costly drive down to Tijuana? Is it that nobody has THOUGHT about the solution outlined above? ER doctors ALREADY know what SHOULD be done. Perhaps nobody has asked them! Is the problem the entrenched special interests here in the US? Who would be on the "special interest" list NOT wanting the simple privatized solutions outlined above? Perhaps, trial lawyers, doctors, US drug companies, hospitals, insurance industry?Recently I was watching an interview with Warren Buffett where Warren stated the he didn't know the answer to the health care debate but that the correct answer needs to be absolutely unilateral for there to be any real benefit to the American people and to the US economy. Warren stated that healthcare expense in the US is higher in percentage terms than any other developed nation.Well then, the solution above is a privatized solution without ANY additional load on the American taxpayer or the American economy. Further the load currently being born by the emergency rooms of this nation would be greatly reduced as preventative medicine would be offloaded to the private sector. Inexpensive "front line" medicine would suddenly be within the grasp of the currently uninsured in the US. Further, my El Salvadoran friend's 200 thousand dollar coma probably could have been avoided.I sincerely hope that this editorial reaches the ears of the correct politicians open minded enough to accept a very simple, common sense solution to a big part of our health care dilemma.