Health care shot over the bow
We're still over a year from the primary, but issues and the opportunity to make points while building name recognition wait for no one. One recent example is U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz opining on the pace of heath care reform. From his press release:
Dr. Eric Wargotz, a physician and candidate for U.S. Senate (R - Maryland), applauds leaders on Capitol Hill who decided to slow down on health care reform to get it right.
“As a practicing physician, I know we can't afford Congress to rush and get it wrong. There must be time for an open, honest debate on the merits of the proposed reform. Placing strict deadlines on passage of this legislation was irresponsible and caused it to get seriously off track,” charged Wargotz.
“Now with more time and more thoughtful debate, our leaders may craft legislation that addresses the root causes of skyrocketing health care costs.”
“Real, meaningful health care reform should have three goals – lower costs; improve patient care; and reduce waiting times for critical care,” said Wargotz.
“The current legislation addresses none of these things and in many cases was going to make it much worse.”
Wargotz, outlining the keys to reform, continued. “To accomplish those three goals, reform must include:
Keeping government and insurance companies out of the medical decision making process;
Reforming the health insurance system;
Tackling frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits by capping non-economic damages; and,
Providing incentives in the health care system to attract more people to become health care professionals.”
“Health care makes up 16% of our Gross Domestic Product. Any reform of the system deserves a healthy debate in the marketplace of ideas. The wrong reforms could have devastating results for our economy and more importantly, those who the reforms are supposed to help,” summed Wargotz.
Join the discussion on health care at Dr. Wargotz's health care web site scheduled to launch next week at www.DrWargotzOnHealthCare.org.
Let's Make America Healthy & Strong!
It's a sign of the times that Eric used Facebook to spread this release, as his website is still under development.
Here's the issue I have with his statement, though. It accepts the premise that something needs to be done and only government can do it. We are ceding the playing field to those who are devoted to simply stopping the latest incursion on freedom and not speaking out about rolling back government's heavy hand on the market. For example, why can't reform include sunsetting the ill-advised Medicare Part D prescription drug program?
Let's look at the Wargotz points one at a time. I certainly agree with keeping government and insurance companies out of the medical decision making process, but it's also up to those who desire services to be wise consumers. Insurance cannot and should not pay for everything - ideally in my eyes health insurance would be more like auto insurance and cover significant loss, leaving maintenance items to the owner.
Further, the definition of "reform" that Dr. Wargotz speaks to in the second aspect of his solution is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps he means portability or simplification of regulation, which are aspects I'd favor. What I don't support is the idea of mandatory coverage, which some include as part of reform (witness the Massachusetts solution credited to Mitt Romney.)
On point number three, Eric suggests a good step but one which doesn't go far enough and may be somewhat misplaced. To me, tort reform also has to include a "loser pays" provision - but I'm not convinced that a federal reform is the way to go. Each state runs its own court system and that battle may be better fought in each state - after all, we have attorneys who scheme to get their suits heard in the states deemed most friendly to plaintiffs so the need for reform is greater in some state capitals than others.
Lastly are "incentives...to attract more people to become health care professionals." You mean a good salary and benefits in a reasonably stable (if not growing with our aging population) profession aren't enough? I don't see the need for any federal program to bring people to the medical profession or, worse, convince them to go into a particular specialty because some bureaucrat deems there's not enough to go around. To return to the previous point, obstetricians would be more plentiful if the threat of John Edwards channeling the unborn and winning a huge lawsuit (which, in turn, led to astoundingly high malpractice insurance premiums) was lessened or eliminated.
All in all, the candidate for Senate makes some good points; however, there's much more he can do to make America healthy and strong by moving these ideas along a path which leads to less government and more freedom. Considering his likely general election opponent is currently under the care of our supposedly "broken" system, it may give her a better feel for what's truly necessary. That prescription isn't being written by Congress or Washington lobbyists.