Controlling Health Care Delivery Costs II

That controlling costs has to be done is beyond question, because the status quo of drastically rising costs can not be sustained by any system of health care delivery. Estimates of congressional proposals for reform have teetered around the 1.2 trillion dollar mark. However, it must be noted that this is not an amount that should be considered on top of what we already spend on health care, which is approximately 2.2 trillion dollars per year; this figure includes money that is currently traded within the system and money imported into the system from the consumers. But, the additional 1.2 trillion that is estimated is an overlap of this amount, not an addition. No one knows how much of the 2.2 trillion can be offset by the new income of 1.2 trillion in spending into the system, but it is a great amount – in the hundred of millions of dollars annually. Additionally one must consider that adding 47 million uninsured people to national insurance rolls are going to cost more in actual dollar amounts. That is a given.

Here are a just a few arguments, and answers, to just a few options for controlling health care delivery costs:

Option: Pass laws restricting to a reasonable amount the level of salaries for all categories of health care providers.

Argument: If we pass laws restricting health care provider salaries we will negatively effect the number of persons willing to go into health care.

Answer: This is not the case in other industrialized nations with universal systems of health care delivery because salaries are kept to a high and reasonable standard of living. That the United States of America would enact something less fair than those nations is unreasonable in itself and an insult to the ability of the United States.

Option: Establish a new non-profit status for any and all organizations making health care equipment, i.e. delivery equipment, hardware, diagnostic tools; with purpose of decreasing fraud and excessive profits.

Argument: Who will design the next CT, MRI, PET scanner or other breakthrough technology if you take away the profit motivation?

Answer: Profit motivation was not the cause of the invention of the above mentioned high technology diagnostic tools. And it is reasonable to expect that profit will not be the motivation for further invention. A small amount of research will uncover that government spending and research by scientists interested in scientific discovery, credential, and accomplishment created the technology that lead to the MRI machine, the CT scanner, and the PET. Military designed radar technology (for instance) is responsible for Magnetic Resonance technology. Sure, scientists want to make good money, but even government scientists are paid well enough to make a comfortable living.

Option: Treat people in primary care situations before they get sick. Subsidize health clubs and gym memberships, yoga classes, smoking cessation and weight loss programs, bring back the doctor’s home visits, etc.

Argument: "...before they get sick"? Do you also propose a new FBI division - Healthcare Nazis? They will arrest you for firing-up that cigarette or nibbling on that cake?

Answer: Catching a chronic or serious disease before it reaches dangerous, or life threatening levels, is an extremely effective way to reduce the costs of health care delivery, never mind reducing the level of personal suffering. Additionally, because the uninsured currently receive the bulk of their health care from emergency room visits (the most expensive way to get health care), visits to a primary care physician to catch disease is loads cheaper. And no one is considering a police force for lifestyle choices. Again; this is not the situation in all other industrialized nations with universal systems of health care delivery. It is an insult to the historic ability of the United States to expect that we would enact a less fair situation with any less liberty. Education is however another situation entirely; an effective health care financing budget would include sufficient funding for educational programs relating to lifestyle choices. One proposal to fund such educational programs is to tax the fun stuff harmful to us: such as tobacco, firearms, alcohol, marijuana, fructose products and fast food.