Raising our Health Care Costs Again
Once again, politicians in Washington are working hard to raise the cost of health insurance for you and your family. But, of course, that’s not how they sell it to us. They make the claim that they’re working together across party lines to help millions of Americans afford health insurance.
As the George Bush stated in his weekly radio address:
“From my conversations with Democrats and Republicans, it is clear both parties recognize that strengthening health care for all Americans is one of our most important responsibilities”
Based on this statement, it’s also quite clear that both parties have chosen to abandon the rules of the Constitution. As the 10th Amendment states so plainly:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Here’s a simple challenge for anyone reading this post: review the US Constitution, and try to find health or health care mentioned anywhere. You might have a tough time, because it’s not there.
Therefore, since getting involved in medical care or the medical insurance business is not within the purview of the federal government, such activity is simply not authorized. Health care, health insurance, drug policy, and the like, must be “reserved to the States…or to the People,” no matter how noble the cause may seem to be.
One fact is nearly indisputable, though: health care in America is in bad shape, and it’s getting worse each year.
We are often reminded that more than forty million Americans go without health insurance, and that this is the fault of the greedy corporations making billions and not due to anything the government has done. We’re told that it’s the health care providers, it’s our employers, or it’s our own bad decisions.
According to the politicians, our declining health care system is anybody and everybody’s fault, except the federal government. This just must be true, because they care about us so much, and would never lie, right?
But, it wasn’t always this way. For decades, the healthcare system in the U.S. was the envy of the whole world. Not too surprisingly, there was far less government involvement in health care at that time as well.
The mess our health care system is in is not the result of too little government involvement, but rather, too much! Obviously, the politicians would never tell us this.
Such honesty would prevent them from having even more power over our day-to-day lives.
Instead, we are told that more and more government involvement, regulation, and decision-making over our health and well-being will solve our problems. But, government is already responsible for nearly two-thirds of all health care spending. They have given us Medicare, Medicaid, billions of research dollars, and countless thousands of pages of regulations.
Even the so-called conservatives, with George Bush leading the charge, have continuously expanded federal power and strengthened government control over our health. With Bush’s prescription drug program, Republicans saddled us with the largest expansion of medical socialism at the national level since the introduction of Medicare. Leftists and socialists should be cheering!
Has all this spending and “regulation” reduced the price of health care? Has all this government “intervention” increased the quality of health care?
No. And this should be quite obvious. Every single year health care gets more expensive, and less accessible, with reduced quality as well. As a result, the politicians spend and regulate the industry more and more each year – to save us, of course.
The important question is this: Who is better off from all the “help” the government has given us? Is it the companies that get favored status, we the people, or the politicians themselves?
If these meddling politicians really cared about people; if they really cared about YOUR health, they’d be doing everything possible to get the federal government out of health care entirely.
Forty years of declining quality and rising prices should make it obvious to even the casual observer that all this government intervention is failing. More intervention is only likely to do the same.
The solution to all today’s medical problems is to get government out of health care. At the very least, we need to end all this massive federal regulation, end Medicare, and repeal all mandatory coverage laws. The result of these early steps would be better care at a lower cost for seniors, the growth of charity hospitals and free clinics, and more options and lower prices for the rest of us.
The best way to make health care more efficient and more affordable is to take the government and politics out of it. If we are to survive this awful mess, we need to follow the tenth amendment and get the federal government completely out of health care, drugs, and everything else not specifically authorized by the Constitution.
This is just what is needed to help the sick and the poor, and that’s exactly why the politicians aren’t even talking about it.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...- If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.
[...] Original post by Tenth Amendment [...]
If I may, I’d like to respectully comment on your piece about health care.
Read your article, you stated the problem but outside of “no government intervetion per the 10th Amendment” you made not one mention of a solution.
I wish you would have spent more time developing your thoughts there.
Am left I to assume that you want a corporate state or “Corporatism”.
>The solution to all today’s medical problems is to get government out of health care.
So poor and aged are left to mercy of lagre corporations or chuch bake sales?
>The result of these early steps would be better care at a lower cost for seniors, the growth of charity hospitals and free clinics, and more options and lower prices for the rest of us.
Are you kidding? I’ve been a Radiation therapist for 18yrs and trust me you can’t ask for a glass of water without being billed.
The billing department spends all day looking for codes to add.
I don’t have any empirical knowlege of other fields, but Big Medicine is NOT a charity.
Sorry, while no doubt you have a point, just stating the 10th Amendment says this or that is just not a solution.
David, thanks for the input. The solution is quite simple - end federal involvement in the health care industry.
Before the feds got their greedy fingers in the pie, health care was cheap and high quality!
now, with masses of regulations and federal spending, quality goes down and prices go up. it’s a pretty simple equation, and works that way with most, if not all, government programs.
The point is that the 10th amendment tells the government how to operate. If we’d just follow it, the government wouldn’t be in the health care business at all. and health care would be high quality at affordable prices. Just like it used to be.
You mentioned that “I’ve been a Radiation therapist for 18yrs and trust me you can’t ask for a glass of water without being billed.”
So, the entire time you’ve been in the health care industry has been under heavy government regulation and involvement, and because of government meddling, the greedy companies barely have to compete. They’re allowed to flourish, because the government makes it that way.
Back when the greedy corporations didn’t have the government keeping out their competition, they actually had to compete with each other, and even smaller companies.
They had to compete by keeping prices low and quality high.
The companies that wouldn’t do that, went out of business.
Now, the government makes it nearly impossible for new, and especially smaller, companies from entering the marketplace - you know what the result is?
the big greedy companies no longer HAVE to lower prices. the big greedy companies no longer HAVE to raise quality.
Because the government makes it so expensive to operate in the industry, all we have left is the big greedy companies…..and YOUR prices go way up. and the service YOU recieve goes way down.
Yes, the solution is simple. The federal government should follow the law. The federal government should get out of health care.
Then, and only then, will our health care system be the envy of the world again.
At a price everyday people can afford.
“review the US Constitution, and try to find health or health care mentioned anywhere.”
OK, that was easy.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…
In other words, a primary reason for the constitution was not to leave the common welfare at the mercy of the greed of private commercial interests, or even to the whim of state legislatures.
It’s quite clear here: providing for the common welfare is above all a constitutional responsibility. And just so there’s no misunderstanding:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
wel·fare /ˈwɛlˌfɛər/
1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child’s welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
Clearly, ensuring the health of the US population is a foundation stone of the Constitution.
Ruth
Ruth: Thank you for your input.
You are correct, that WAS quite easy! Even in what you’ve pointed out, health and health care is not specifically listed, other than how you have personally defined things. And that’s the problem.
The way things are now, whoever has the most power defines things the way they want it, and all we end up with is further centralization and further control over our day to day lives - at the expense of our health, safety and our prosperity.
The tenth amendment makes it quite clear that if something isn’t specifically listed, the federal government can’t do it.
As for the preamble, this is absolutely not an authorization of power - in any way.
All that the preamble says is this:
1. We the people
2. for these reasons (welfare, justice, tranquility)
3. establish a constitution
The Constitution then goes on to provide the rules for government. When government follows those rules, we have those things that “we the people” listed at the beginning.
The preamble, like the preamble for every document, is simply an explanation of WHAT the document is being written for. period.
Here’s the definition of preamble, just so there’s no misunderstanding:
Unfortunately, policitians have misled many good-meaning people like yourself to believe that they can do whatever they want, as long as it fits their or your definition of what “general welfare” is. It’s pretty easy to see where that’s gotten us.
The real question is what are the legitimate functions of goverment.
I do not see the words health care, education in the constitution.
It says promote the general welfare not provide or require.
A free society needs a high degree of personal responsibility, tolerance and individual generosity.
As usual, this blogger gets it wrong.
The US health care has always been extremely weak in many kep respects, including lack of universal health care coverage and inadequate preventive care. There has always been a very large segment of people without insurance coverage and since that segment is largely poor, is implausible to claim it is simply a matter of free choice. It’s a matter of being able to pay ….
Also the cost explosion is not caused primarily by the government. Rather it is caused by lack of cost controls in a system where doctors, particularly specialists, create for demand for their services. It is a well known that best predictor of heart bypass surgery is not the incidence of cardiovascular disease, but the number of heart surgeons living in a given area.
Indeed, the best health care systems, such as the French system, are much more heavily regulated than the American systems. The World Health Organization ranks the French system the best in the world. The French health care provides universal coverage and is cutting edge in the use of technology. But the system has the advantage of one single buyer called the French government, which controls the supply creating its own demand phenomenon. Whereas France spends 11% of its real GDP on health care, the US spends close to 17%, and the US system offers inferior care.
Let’s get the fact straight. Americans have no excuse for being ignorant about the rest of the world.
Roderick S. Beck:
Your input is appreciated, but it’s clear that you only base your viewpoints on current events and completely ignore history.
You are absolutely correct when you refer to the fact that the WHO refers to the French system as the best in the world. No one is disupting that the WHO considers them the best.
But, you make a claim which is completely unsubstantiated when you state that:
If you just took a short, casual look at the history of health care in America, you’d see that BEFORE government involvement and BEFORE any type of cost controls, cost directives and government spending, prices were extremely low and quality was the best in the world - hands down.
This is a pretty simple equation, and it’s surprising that you’re not able to get that.
This complex argument should not get down to semantic dissection of the 10 amendment. There has been a movement in the last 10 years toward evidence based medicine. Unfortunately the private sector of insurance corporations, in diminishing numbers, with less competition, have their teams of attorneys, in each state, review their position and nickel and dime the consumer while maintaining profits. In most states they are almost guaranteed to make a small profit. As their expenses rise, they apply to raise rates, and reduce coverage. The insurance industry has no incentive to cuts costs and reduce rates. Statistics have shown a majority of every americans lifetime health care costs occurs after they are covered by medicare. (we all pay via our taxes). Private insurers should have to carry a greater burden of the cost for the entire life of the individual. In our present system, they win the lotto when ever you turn 65. This true market pressure would reduce costs. Medicare was meant to be a safety net for seniors not the cash cow for Hospitals and geriatric providers nationwide.
Doctorrazz
Going further, Roderick:
Some would claims that currently, there are NO really good healthcare systems in the world. Maybe the French have it best, maybe they don’t - that’s obviously subjective.
The French system does have two strong advantages over the failing British system:
1. It actually encourages the growth of privately owned hospitals much more than the british.
2. It also encourages some level of competition between the state and the private hospitals.
That being said, it could be argued that the reason that France’s is best is because it offers some of the most free enterprise in the world. Is that a fact? Not sure, but it is possible.
Rich as France is, it won’t be too many more years before she can no longer sustain extremely high unemployment caused by massive government control over every part of society. Government spending in France eats up over 55% of the French economy.
In many ways, France is in the same boat as many American corporate giants, like General Motors, Ford, and the like. When these companies were doing well, unions and the government forced them to pay more and more in wages and benefits.
But, eventually, these companies lost marketshare due to competition and lower prices. Now, they have a completely unsustainable overhead, and will probably never return to profitability. France, with its endless government spending, is heading along the same path, and there we’ll again see the failure of socialized medicine.
When it’s all said and done, though, we’re not here to compare America’s health care with that of France, or China, or England, or anywhere else. We’re talking about how American healthcare is, how it was, and how it should be.
Glen, some good points. The argument isn’t based on the tenth amendment, as health care is much broader than just that.
The point, though, is that if the federal government simply followed the law; if it followed the tenth amendment, there never would have been all this federal involvement in the health care business.
Without all that federal government meddling in our health, prices would still be low, and the quality would most likely still be the best in the world.
The reason the tenth amendment exists is because the founders realized that politicians would always try to get their fingers in every pot available. But, they knew full well that politicians are just that - politicians.
They aren’t health care experts. The aren’t education experts. They aren’t economic experts, and on and on.
This is the primary reason to keep the politicians out of our most important affairs - they always screw it all up.
Although many have debated the health care issue based on the 10th amendment, in a document authored and signed by our forefathers, you cannot tell me that the costs and knowledge of medicine was even dreamed of when this document was written. Come on people, get with the times!
Like everything else, money or the acquisition of additional wealth is what drives our government and politicians in these times. The government regulates healthcare to appease certain individuals at the time that in most cases, is trying to increase the funds or revenue for others. And sure the government writes new regulations concerning this drug or that sterility issue in the guise of helping the people which in turn increases cost but its all in the pursuit of raising others awareness of the potential of complications and to increase revenues. Everything comes down to costs both in terms of monetary and human life.
Interesting point of view - that we should just let the government break the law because something important has come up…..even when there is a process for changing the law, called AMENDMENTS!
there’s a few issues here:
1. it’s already demonstrated that federal government involvement has RAISED health care costs and lowered quality. that’s obvious
2. the law. it’s unfortunate, that in these times of government violating the law at every chance possible, that some people still want further violations.
At least there’s an organization trying to help the least of us, those with out voting capital, children. Look at the Children’s Defense Fund’s proposal to provide health coverage for all children. http://www.childrensdefense.org/healthychild
I find it hard to believe that
as this article claims. All other ‘western nations’ have a far better system of health care than the USA has ever had or ever will have.
And contrary to another claim by this article, “The solution to all today’s medical problems is to get government out of health care” is NOT the answer. The answer is to stop running the healthcare system on a for-profit basis, where 75% of billions allegedly spent on health care is mostly tied up in adminsitrative costs, which means high salaries, benefits, pensions and maintaining expensive office bldgs for political cronies to sit and play in for 8 hrs a day, while millions go homeless and without health care. Ever notice that the government has nothing to do with training of doctors and other healthcare professionals? while allowing private schools to churn out many who are not fit to care for the public for the right price?
Is there any other nation in the world where a government in power has no official policy whatsoever regarding the selection, education, training, practicing and dicipline of doctors and other healthcare professions, technicians and workers that are the only ones allowed to care for the health of the entire nation?
TS-Rose: Thank you for your input.
You are absolutely correct when you state the western nations have far better health care than the US. The US is also one of the most-regulated health care systems in the world.
It appears you haven’t done much research on the history of the subject.
In the 1940’s, the average working family could afford health care - now, it’s almost unafforable.
In 1945, life expectancy for BOTH men and women - the US was #1 in the world.
This has now dropped into the 20’s.
America’s hospitals and doctors were the finest in the world.
There were thousands of private charities that provided health care to the poor.
Now, almost all of this is gone. Why? as the article made clear, the government got involved.
Costs are extremely high because the government makes it nearly impossible for any competition to exist. They PROMOTE the existence of the big corporation draining us for everything we have, by preventing any small businesses from getting into the marketplace through massive regulations, costs, and the like.
This is one of the most basic concepts of economics.
High competition lowers prices and raises quality. Low competition does the opposite.
We’ve already seen what the government does to:
our education, once vaunted, now awful
our healthcare - once good and affordable, now impossible.
the war on poverty - we’re worse off than ever
the war on drugs - drugs are escalating
our foreign policy - wars never seem to end
When we separate health care from government, we’ll dissolve the government-created demand for needless, high-priced medical insurance.
We will enjoy higher quality, cost-conscious health care.
We’ll take $1 trillion every year from overpriced medical spending – and put it back in the pockets of working Americans. And that is just what working people need.
The big question is this: Why would anyone trust the US government to care for us in the most important aspects of our life? Education, peace, prosperity, health?
They’ve proven to us time and time again, that when we give them great power, they’ll just abuse it.
TS: some further comments…
You asked if there was “any nation in the world” where the government didn’t have policy over the training, etc of doctors?
Well, not sure of the exact answer to that, but the good ole Soviet Union gives an excellent counter-example to the follies of government-controlled doctoral training:
The Soviet government trained more doctors than any country in the world, but if you looked at the health stats of the country, it was a miserable failure:
Lifespans were 10-20 years less than western countries
Infant mortality was double
By the late 1980’s, over 80 million people had chronic illnesses.
Does this mean that every country that has a full-communal/socialist healthcare system will have the same results?
no.
In fact, some might have it quite good. But the lesson here is clear.
When you leave health to politicians, the danger of failure is much too high for the health and well-being of the people.
One generation, one country, may get great care, only to have the next be decimated like the people in the Soviet Union were.