The “50 Laboratories” Model for Health Care
11. Jun, 2009 
9 Comments
by Jake Towne
Much of what our federal government is doing right now is not just illegal and unconstitutional, it’s also just plain stupid. How about using some “Common Sense”?
This short piece will describe “50 Laboratories” model using the current debate over federal nationalization of our health care as a practical example. However, I want to stress that this argument can be applied to most other topics of national concern, such as energy, the economy, retirement and even hot-button topics like same-sex marriage and abortion.
As the self-styled “Champion of the Constitution,” readers of my regular column are very familiar with my application of the Constitution to current events and issues. I confess that an affection for the Tenth Amendment from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights runs very strong in my blood. I even believe it should be repeated several more times in the Constitution so that posterity will never neglect it.
“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.”
However, let us assume for the purpose of this article that this argument is null and void. In fact, our federal Legislative, Judicial and Executive have behaved for the past decade as if this is the case, so whatever your personal views are, oath or no oath, this is a fair assumption to make.
Conversely, let us also hypothetically assume the argument that all 50 States do not have Sovereignty over their own States is also null and void, though this is fairly ridiculous. Perhaps when the day arrives where Rhode Island and Connecticut decide to merge into the state of Rhodnecticut, or North Carolina and South Carolina combine into Carolina, we can review this once more.
Let’s use a little common sense in regards to Obamacare, which ambitiously endeavors to provide socialized health care to all citizens in all 50 states, forcing them to pay the same relative rates either directly or by taxation. Many citizens are opposed to such a change, and personally I have been finding very many eloquent opinions against this plan. Let’s place utopian and armageddon viewpoints aside for the moment, and look at the two possible outcomes espoused by each side in the debate. (symbol)
- AGAINST – Health care costs will spiral upwards, quality of service will plummet, and the right of the individual to choose their method of care will be infringed.
- FOR – Everyone will get health care, costs will be contained and reasonable, and the quality of care for the collective whole will be OK, and the rich can opt out with a penalty payment and still choose.
Well, first we certainly need a public debate to debate the finer points and not a party line vote in the House and Senate – who would likely pass it despite, judging on prior votes, whether we have the means to do so or not. It would be interesting to see if the bill mandates that all Members of Congress must enroll in the plan.
However, rather than embark on a possible national health care disaster, how about we try variants of these plans in a couple of willing States for several years? (Of course all the public accounting would need to be transparent – one could imagine Big Brother “stimulating” the plans to success behind closed doors!) Why do we not use our 50 States as “50 Laboratories”? This would provide us with the following:
- A real-life feasibility study.
- If there is success, some valuable lessons on optimization would be learned from any mistakes and generate confidence in the plan
- Disaster proofing – we do not run the risk of failing the whole country on any given idea all at once
If the plans work, the States will be happy and may even have migration problems from all the Americans eager to arrive and work inside the universal health care system! We could then consider such a plan in other states or on a national level.
If the plans fail, the States should pullback and end them as soon as eventual failure becomes obvious or as they wish. Does this sound like common sense or not?
Well, it appears that in the case of health care, we’ve already tried this in Massachusetts for the past three (3) years, hence the overall tone of the above. Per this article from the Reason Foundation, nationalizing Massachusett’s health care failed. Miserably.
A separate study by the Cato Institute found that although Massachusetts politicians promised that the insurance mandate would reduce medical costs. They also estimated that health insurance premiums could drop by 25-40%. Instead…
* Premiums rose by 7.4% in 2007, 8-12% in 2008, and are expected to rise 9% this year
* This compares to an average nationwide increase of only 5.7% over the same period
* Annual health insurance costs for a family in Massachusetts average about $4,000 more than the national rate
* Health care spending has also increased in Massachusetts by 23% since the coverage mandate was enacted
In my view, socialist proponents (or should I instead write “health care lobbyists”? Cui bono?) should go back to their drawing board and try to convince another State to embark on a multi-year experiment. If this idea works so great, this should be an absolute cakewalk, and State after State will come knocking on their doors to volunteer. This will make passing a Constitutional amendment easier (grin). Since success is just extremely unlikely, not impossible, I wish them luck.
However, I would suggest that these proponents forget their complicated plans to enrich the few from plundering the many for just a moment and instead study free market economics, which we have not had in our country for a long, long, time. For a philosophical primer, please the “Health Care and Indigenous Power” section of Common Sense Revisited, available for free download here.
Jake Towne, “The Champion of the Constitution,” is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake is a columnist at NolanChart, and also contributes to LibertyMaven, CampaignForLiberty, and PopulistAmerica.com. A master campaign presentation for internet viewing is available. [Reach the Author Here!]
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Not only does the model fail, on a national level there’s nothing constitutional about it1
By that I mean the so-called free health care that’s being proposed.
“1-# AGAINST – Health care costs will spiral upwards, quality of service will plummet, and the right of the individual to choose their method of care will be infringed.”
Why you say this as it’s a fact. You don’t know what the outcome is so please don’t say it as if it’s a fact. The only fact is that the current system doesn’t work good enough and in need of repair/ change/ overhaul. Offer suggestions to fix the problems but please don’t state your opinion as a fact.
Saying the Massachusetts model failed because of the inherent flaws in the plan is useless. It took me all of 4 seconds to realize that the insurance providers simply rose rates in the state for everyone (malpractice insurance included) to try to stamp out the plan, or show the experiment as a massive failure. How could they do this, you ask? Well, remember, they have 49 other states to support their companies while they sacrifice this one for the sake of their end goal. Why would they do this? Well, they know a “nationwide plan” would indeed work decently and probably cost them quite a bit of business.
To think that you can write a multi-paragraph article without realizing this is sad, and says much about your ability.
That is, unless you have some alterior motive… which I suspect you do since you only list what the insurance companies did (raised rates) rather than how the people of the state (the same people you pretend to look out for) actually benefited. Here’s a hint, *they received good healthcare from the state at a very decent price!*
Why not the 162 laboratories model in which you look at every other country and realize that they pay significantly less per capita than the US for health care, and receive much higher quality care. In terms of life expectancy, the US ranks 45th in the world.
You’re right – quality has gone way down and cost way up in this country. This has gotten worse each year since the government got involved in the health care business…the solution is to follow the constitution and get the federal government out of the industry. If individual states want to provide socialized care like the individual states around the world do, that would be the prerogative of the people who live there.
one-size-fits all solutions are bad, not only because they create a constant state of divisiveness, but also because if you don’t like the politicians who are in charge, you’ll likely end up with just the opposite of what you want.
OT, but I just found this video showing that the Tea Parties are not an “Astro Turf” movement, as claimed by Krugmam. Watch to see the reception given to Republican Congressman, Gresham Barrett, at the Greenville, SC Tea Party.
Gotta love it! http://www.viddler.com/explore/PalmettoScoop/videos/10/
al, The author does not stae that as fact. He comments that #1 ans #2 are being “espoused” by the opposite sides of the debate. You should take your time and reread the article.
I seem to remember Medicare and medicate trying this on a national level and them getting the same results, just as the institutions of the same programs and likewise insurance have instigated the medical cost explosion in the first place.
It is all perfectly logical and predictable why you would have runaway cost when you removal all practical cost selection from the healthcare market.
We can therefore guarantee that Obama’s healthcare plain will have exactly the same results as the practically identical plans already tried. as Einstein said it is a mark of insanity to keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result, particularly when all market mechanic tell you why.
The only way they are going to reduce or control the price of healthcare is by reintroducing price selection which they along with insurance took out.
Unfortunately in a government controlled plain that price selection is not yours but theirs. and thus the individual can only lose a most vital liberty from this.
The only thing a government plan introduces besides loss in individual liberty is the further usurpation of making you pay for the medical consequences of other people’s choices.
Even if government run healthcare were constitutional, wise, and feasible. it still wouldn’t be ethical or consistent with a people that values their liberty.
I see no possible necessity to justify imposing the will of the majority to the exclusion of the rights of the minor(individual) in this regard.
The fact that health care is not in the constitution further means that we did not consent to the possibility of this usurpation making it tyranny.
The US government does not have the right to impose this upon the people and if we are to respect the constitution we must nullify such actions due to their being beyond the scope of their legitimate (and thus respectable/enforceable) powers. I see no other way to maintain the republic then to up hold it’s constitution and not permit such usurpation. That being said the united state government and thus it’s constitution is not the agent of the people directly but rather the peoples states and thus it falls upon the state governments individual to uphold it’s constitutional limitations.