Monday, February 19, 2007

A solution for rational Health Care in the USA

Well, it didn't make the top 25 emailed articles in the past week, or even the top 10 in the Business section of the NY Times (I am a watcher and subscriber), but the Robert Frank article of February 15 entitled "A Health Care Plan So Simple, Even Stephen Colbert Couldn’t Simplify It", http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/business/15scene.html, was a nice, short, thoughtful piece on our Health Care problems. It might be the most detailed proposal out there so far. Our Democratic hopefuls should take a look.

The plan cited is actually from Victor Fuchs, a respected health economist at Stanford University, and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, chairman of the department of clinical bioethics at the National Institutes of Health.

The Fuchs/Emanuel Plan outlines a single payer voucher plan that can work. Unlike the President's latest proposal, which is kinda goofy as per the Colbert quote in the article, and it focuses on strengthening the hold of private insurance and taking away the tax exemption that people who pay their insurance premiums though company plans. The latter is a good idea, to continue the dominion of the former is goofy. Why? Because as is we end up spending double what other advanced countries do for administrative costs, and we still have some 45 million uncovered Americans. Under the Fuchs/Emanuel plan, a single payer voucher system would save us $300 Billion per year in administrative costs. It would also:
  • cover every American under the age of 65
  • allow free choice of health plans
  • freedom to purchase services beyond the standard allotment with after-tax dollars
  • the private delivery system remains in place
  • eliminates the need for Medicaid and other means-tested programs
  • would eventually replace Medicare
  • managed by a Federal Health Board modeled on the Federal Reserve System

This plan make so much sense economically (full coverage and more efficient), maybe not politically, but that's for the politicians to try.

No comments: