One thing most Americans agree on
is that our health care system needs an overhaul.
Some people believe the answer
is more money from Washington
and bureaucratic agencies making sure everyone
is following the rules.
Others suggest we should import the kind
of government run models they have in Europe and Canada.
A third option would redirect our current system.
Putting patients and doctors in the driver's seat
and making healthcare providers and insurance companies
compete for customers.
As you weigh the options,
here are a few basic facts you need to know.
Long before Obamacare came along in 2009,
Washington was already in the business
of picking winners and losers in health care.
Shortly after World War II,
we began giving tax breaks to those
who got health care via their employer.
In the long run however,
the biggest winner was the insurance industry.
As more and more people became members of group plans
as opposed to purchasing individual insurance.
More Washington meddling occurred in the 1960s,
with the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.
While created with good intentions,
these government programs have skyrocketed in terms of cost
but have nosedived when it comes to consumer choice.
Instead of allowing individuals to decide where
and from whom they want to get their medical care,
Washington makes that call.
Selecting various special interests
to qualify for those tax dollars.
And then came the mother of all meddling, Obamacare.
With a huge push to not only expand Medicaid
but to take over what was left
of the private insurance market,
through more government mandates and regulations.
The result?
Premiums doubled in the first four years of Obamacare.
Last year,
the average monthly premium for individual insurance
was $476 per person per month
in the 39 states participating in healthcare.gov.
But while premiums have gone up,
choices have gone down.
In more than 80 percent of counties across the country,
there is only one or two health care plans
available on Obamacare Exchange.
That means millions of Americans now have far fewer choices
when it comes to their doctor and health care network.
Perhaps that is why less than half
of the 24 million people projected to sign up
have actually done so.
And for the ones who have,
the vast majority, over 86 percent,
were put on Medicaid.
Which by the way,
doesn't insure they now have health care.
Because increasing numbers of doctors
and other medical providers
are no longer accepting Medicaid.
So what about trying out what we've seen in other countries?
A full blown government run health care approach.
Let's start close to home,
by considering our neighbors to the north.
When compared to 11 similar countries,
including the United States,
a recent study shows that whether
it's emergency room visits, same or next day appointments,
seeing a specialist, or getting elective surgery,
Canada's wait times are the worst.
In fact, in 2016,
Canadians waited an average of five months
for medically necessary specialist treatments.
Maybe that's why almost 60,000 of them
visit the U.S. and other countries each year
for medical care.
And speaking of other countries,
over in the United Kingdom,
where they've had 70 years to figure out
how to run a government controlled health care system,
over 80 percent of doctors there
say their work places are understaffed.
That probably explains why over 50,000 nonurgent surgeries
were canceled in 2018,
when their system was overwhelmed by flu season.
So if more money and more direction from Washington
isn't the answer,
and neither is putting everyone
in a European style national health care system,
what is?
Well what if we tried the completely opposite approach?
And put individuals and patients, also known as consumers,
in the driver's seat.
As opposed to the government deciding
which medical and insurance providers get your tax dollars,
you decide.
Think about it.
An industry after industry.
Where businesses have to compete,
what happens?
Choices and innovation increase.
Prices and other barriers to access come down.
A similar approach needs to be taken
in reforming our healthcare system.
It won't happen overnight,
but even a small step in the right direction
shows the possibilities.
Seven states that obtained waivers from Obamacare mandates,
giving them the freedom to try new approaches
are now projecting higher enrollments in 2019,
at significantly lower costs.
30 percent lower in Maryland.
Almost 20 percent in Alaska and Minnesota.
And 15 percent in New Jersey.
And all the approaches used to achieve these savings
relied on tools that helps those
with preexisting conditions get access to care.
And that's just one example of what can happen
when the operating philosophy is more choices
in competition as opposed to one size fits all.
Individuals and families have different needs
and preferences when it comes to most things in life.
Including their health care.
It's time our politicians respect their wishes
and our laws allow more choice.