Sarah Palin's Health Care Stupidity

"The Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing," former Alaska governor Sarah Palin angrily roared on Wednesday night.

"The sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care or not."

Of course, Sarah Palin's legions of adoring right-wing fans screeched in approval at her outburst - but does their condemnation of Obama's health care proposals actually hold up to scrutiny?

The simple answer is: No.

Because as opposed to government-run health care as I am, Sarah Palin's accusations could equally be leveled at the existing health care system - the one she's fighting to preserve.

"Unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care or not," Palin screams. But surely a private system, run by insurance companies that can arbitrarily decide that a sick person is 'uninsurable', rations health care to those who need it most in exactly the same way.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote last Friday.

But surely a privately-run system, in which people who can't afford it simply don't get access to private medical care, is equally 'evil.'

Sarah Palin's Down syndrome baby, Trig, has access to wonderful medical care - because his mother is rich. Thousands of other Down syndrome babies, born to parents who can't afford private medical insurance, are looked after by the same Government-run, 'free' health care system that Sarah Palin is complaining about. Their health coverage is 'rationed.'

My whole problem with the Republican approach to attacking health care reform is that it's all built on lies and misinformation.

President Obama's not suggesting 'socialized' health care - yet that's what these idiots are waving on their placards outside the Town Hall meetings.

While yes, President Obama is proposing that the government cover the cost of treating America's millions of uninsured - but how is that different than the insured covering the cost of treating them? Through vastly bloated premiums - as is the case now.

Remember, there already is universal health care in America. The Republicans are trying to ignore that fact, while Obama's merely trying to pay for it.

The unfortunate thing is that sound-bites and angry rants are the fuel-stuff of the Conservative movement. The more pundits like Palin get them fired up with horror stories of 'death panels' and 'socialized medicine', the more they'll oppose Obama's health care reforms without understanding what they are.

The Republicans have always been good at appealing to the lowest common denominator and working up a crowd to fever pitch. It's just unfortunate that, in this instance, they're doing it merely to oppose anything Obama proposes, rather than to actually benefit themselves, their loved ones or anybody who relies on America's health care system.

Curing America's Health Care

A while ago, I wrote about how America's 'private' health care system currently costs the taxpayer almost as much as running the British National Health Care service - and then charges the consumer even more than that on top!

Well, the fact that American health care costs too much is no longer under debate. Today, Price Waterhouse Coopers' Health Research Institute listed money-wasting problems that cause the American health care industry to pour $1.2 trillion down the drain every year (roughly half of the money spent on medicine.)

What were these financial hemorrhages? Here are some of the worst ones identified by Price Waterhouse Cooper:

1. Two many tests. Making an informed diagnosis is one thing. Running unnecessary tests is another. Capping malpractice suits and encouraging 'evidence-based' diagnosis could cut the amount of expensive tests performed in half - and save insurance companies billions.
2. Insurance company bureaucracy. I've already argued that the insurance companies are almost criminal in their bureaucratic incompetence, but the proof is finally here. Doctors report that 40% of their revenue is spent filling in insurance company certification - simply getting the money for the services they've performed. Price Waterhouse Cooper argue that standardized forms and a computerized database system (as touted by President Obama) could shred this waste of time and money - cutting doctor's overheads dramatically and lowering costs for both insurance companies and patients.
3. Paper prescriptions. It's not just the insurance companies who are behind the times. Many doctors can send 'electronic prescriptions' to a patient's chemist almost instantly, but over $4 billion a year is wasted by doctors who still insist on writing their prescriptions the old fashioned way.
4. 'Free' medical care for the uninsured. No, I'm not arguing that people without insurance shouldn't receive care. What is causing a problem is them using the Emergency Room as a primary care provider. Illegal immigrants and the uninsured go to the ER for strep throat and other 'regular' health problems, which a GP would normally deal with. A GP visit would cost around $70. A trip to the ER costs $700. At the end of the day, those costs are passed along to the paying customer (i.e. us) if the hospitals or doctors don't get reimbursed.
5. Over-prescribing antibiotics. It's estimated that prescribing antibiotics for conditions they simply can't treat (like coughs, colds and flu) costs over a billion dollars in wasted medicine and contributes to the development of antibiotic-immune MRSA bacteria, which in turn add an additional $3 billion worth care-associated infections. Doctors need to start practicing the medicine they studied and not give out antibiotics as placebos.
   
6. Hospital Bed Churn. It's estimated that $25 billion is spent every year on providing medical care to patients who are discharged from hospital too early. The pressure to get 'em in and churn 'em out inspires doctors and hospitals to discharge patients before they're ready - and the added cost of ambulance trips, re-admittance and recovery hurts all of our wallets.
   

The grand total, Price Waterhouse Cooper argue, is a whopping $1.2 trillion in wasted expenditure. Just imagine if we slashed that spending.

If you could, you might arguably maintain the current system on taxpayer dollars alone (according to this Economist report.) Alternatively, you could dramatically slash insurance premiums for the majority of us with coverage.

But identifying the waste and actually dealing with it are two starkly different things. One's got to wonder if either party will actually use this information, now that Price Waterhouse Cooper has made it available. I'm skeptical.

The Republican party is currently gunning to maintain the current system - bitterly fighting against any of Obama's suggested health care reforms whilst simultaneously failing to provide any worthwhile alternative suggestions of their own.

Meanwhile, many Democrats are still wound up in fantasies of 'universal health care' and demolishing a private industry which provides almost 20% of the United State's GDP - all for the sake of a government-run system that's been proven not to work in half a dozen other countries.

How much does 'Private' medical care cost the taxpayer?

The Economist blew me out of the water today with their analysis of the American Health Care system. In acknowledging it's strong points (like excellent cancer recovery rates) it exposed something I think most Republicans would find surprising.

Compared to other countries - including countries with entirely 'socialized' medicine like Great Britain - the American tax-payer pays just as much to treat people (and sometimes more.)

The American tax payer is already funding a public-medical system that exceeds the British NHS

For example, the average health care costs of an American individual are $7,000 dollars per year. Of that, private health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses cover just $4,000 of it. The rest is picked up by the tax-payer.

Compare that to Great Britain, where our (admittedly inferior) health care system spends just $3,000 a year on each individual (with people picking up about $500 out-of-pocket.)

What does that mean?

It means that the tax-payer burden of providing 'free' health care to every individual in Great Britain is actually LESS than the cost of providing 'privately funded' health care in America. What's even worse, is that on top of the American tax-payer paying more than enough to fund a system like the NHS, they're then asked to pay $4,000 on top.

They're basically paying for health care twice. And as good as the American health care system is, it's not that good.

I've argued before that 'socialized medicine' and universal health care already exist in America - but I can see that I grossly underestimated the problem. We, the health care consumer, are being fleeced - and Republicans who demonize so-called 'socialized health care' are unaware that they've been contributing to it for years now.