Max Stanely Chartrand, Ph.D. says:

Yes, I am–like nearly all the informed health professionals I know–dead set against the federal government “reforming” healthcare. That’s too much power for an entity that produces nothing and is at heart of the current problems. My estimate is that as much as 41 cents of today’s private healthcare comes from cost-shifting from the short/no pays under MediCare, Medicaid, and Indigent Care. That particular aspect grows everytime Congress its nose into the matter. Defensive medicine is alive and well, as well, and while many seem to looking at the obvious bouncing ball (professional liability premiums) the real elephant in the living room are the endless tests, second and third opinions, and just to be sure, piles of waivers and releases that plague the hispitals in the U.S. The solutions are so obvious it almost hurts to see so many in the debate tiptoeing around them. We don’t need an overhaul, but we need some serious clean up:

1) If we want competition, we can have it by allowing competition across state lines. Taxpayer subsidized anything is unfair “competition” (if can be called that).

2) Remove hundreds of state and federal mandates that continue to drive up costs by requiring needless coverage (such as maternity, etc, for those who do not need it). These regs were designed more for protectionism than by patient needs.

3) Tort reform needs to go much further than merely putting caps on non-economic suffering. The spectre of malpractice claims looms no matter how low or high the caps are. Currently, the cost threshold for legal representation in tort claims runs at $250,000—and that is just to get to trial! Tort reform must address ambulance chasing, unnecessary medical tests, and frivolouos claims with heavy penalties. There is more to the issue, of course, but they must be addressed—any of the socialized systems touted as a shining example would fall on their faces within a year if they had to survive in our litigation environment!

4) Expand Medical MSAs (we called them Medical IRAs in the Golden Rule study, which, by the way, was the most successful health insurance program I’ve ever seen in reducing costs, increasing quality of care, and incentivizing better health and lifestyle choices. This model consists of two simple components: 1) A very low cost, high deductible (say, $2,500-$5,000) major medical policy, and 2) An interest-bearing, tax-exempt, medical savings account from which the deductible is paid (amazingly, the draw down rate from that account goes to nil when people get healthy!

5) Use the Medical MSA model of health insurance become an option for Medicaid and for MediCare and watch the costs of those program go into meldown. For those who cannot afford insurance, a voucher system on the deductible can be devised with established financial thresholds. For instance, those at 125%, say, of poverty line, can recieve the entire Major Medical policy free of charge (still a lot cheaper than ObamaCare’s Spartan program), and enjoy an income-adjusted voucher for the deductible portion. In this way, the poor receive the same insurance coverage as everyone else, and are incentivized to abstain substances that are bad for them–by not drawing anything out of their savings account, they don’t have to put any more into it. Then, they have a stake in making better health and lifestyle choices. This particular group, as evidenced by myriad studies, are the largest consumers of the non-elderly groups of healthcare consumers. From the Golden Rule study and years of observations, we will see this group get better care and require less of it as they become healthier in the process. Their access to the preventive aspects alone, constitute progress; but far greater progress when bad health habits that predominate in the lower economic strata are curtailed through the incentives that eminate from the Medical MSA experience.

As one can see, we should reject out of hand having such a costly, inefficient, freedom-robbing, power-based entity as the federal government running healthcare. It can be done much cheaper at the private market without curtailing a laundry list of lost freedoms and onerous taxation. The only reason ObamaCare has earned silence from many of the players at the table (AMA, Pharma, AARP, etc.) is because each have been promised “business as usual” and more. Bribing does not come cheap. ObamaCare will cost more than the current system and cost us much, much–and progressively–more. The nature of this freedom-destroying beast should not be let out of its cage. Instead, get the beast out of the way, and give us the hard-working, ingenious enterprise of freedom and entreprenuership to resolve what’s wrong in healthcare today. Other countries are bound to follow suit.
Dear All:

It seems my material on the healthcare debate has reached the major news sources and numerous conservative and liberal organizations nationwide, and be hitting a nerve (in unison with countless other patriots) in changing the shape of the healthcare debate. More and more I am being asked, “What is the solution?”. My replies have drawn upon on research, writing, and direct involvement in the late 1980s “Play or Pay” proposals (George Bush the First), mid 90s HillaryCare, and a few mini-resurrections raised from time to time thereafter.

The following is my most recent reply to an inquiry as to what I feel are the needed reforms in healthcare. As you may tell, any program administered and financed by the federal government is the LAST place we even consider going. What we need is LESS government involvement and much more private market involvement. Here is a comprehensive, though not exhaustive, outline of proposed changes:

I am–like nearly all the informed health professionals I know–dead set against the federal government “reforming” healthcare. That’s too much power for an entity that produces nothing of value and is at the heart of our current problems. My estimate is that as much as 41 cents of today’s private healthcare expenditures come from cost-shifting from the short/no pays under MediCare, Medicaid, and Indigent Care to the private market. That particular aspect grows every time Congress pokes its nose into the matter. Defensive medicine is alive and well, also, and while many seem to be looking at the obvious bouncing ball (professional liability premiums) the real elephant in the living room are the endless tests, second and third opinions, and just to be sure, piles of waivers and releases that plague the hospitals. The solutions are so obvious it almost hurts to see so many in the debate tiptoeing around them. We don’t need an overhaul, but we need some serious clean up:

1) If we want competition, we can have it by allowing competition across state lines. Taxpayer subsidized anything is unfair “competition” (if can be called that). Make no mistake about it: The so-called “public option” is not competition. It is an insidious takeover that will eventually close down the private healthcare system as we know it today (except for the czars in government and the vodoo dolls of the left: the “Rich”.

2) Remove hundreds of state and federal mandates that continue to drive up costs by requiring needless coverage (such as maternity, etc, for those who do not need it). These regs were designed more for protectionism than for patient needs.

3) Tort reform needs to go much further than merely putting caps on non-economic suffering. The spectre of malpractice claims looms large no matter how low or high the caps are. Currently, the cost threshold for legal representation in tort claims runs at about $250,000—and that is just to get to trial! Tort reform must also address ambulance chasing, unnecessary medical tests, and frivolous claims with heavy penalties. There is more to the issue, of course, but these must be addressed—any of the socialized systems touted as a shining example would fall on their faces within a year if they had to survive in our litigation environment!

4) Expand Medical MSAs (we called them Medical IRAs in the Golden Rule study, which, by the way, was the most successful health insurance program we’ve seen for reducing costs, increasing quality of care, and incentivizing better health and lifestyle choices. This model consists of two simple components: 1) A very low cost, high deductible (say, $2,500-$5,000) major medical policy, and 2) An interest-bearing, tax-exempt, medical savings account from which the deductible is paid (amazingly, the draw down rate from that account goes to nil when people get healthy!)

5) Use the Medical MSA model of health insurance to become an option for or to replace Medicaid and for MediCare, and watch the costs of those programs go into meldown. For those who cannot afford insurance, a voucher system on the deductible can be devised with established financial thresholds. For instance, those at, say, 125% of poverty line, would receive the entire Major Medical policy paid for by the states or federal government (still a lot cheaper than ObamaCare’s Spartan program). The MSA component would have an income-adjusted voucher for the deductible portion. In this way, the poor receive the same insurance coverage as everyone else, and are incentivized to abstain from substances that is harmful to their health–and by not drawing anything out of their savings account, they don’t have to put any more into it. Then, they have a stake in making better health and lifestyle choices. This particular group, as evidenced by myriad studies, are the largest consumers of the non-elderly groups of healthcare consumers. From the Golden Rule study and subsequent years of observations, we will see this group get better care and require less of it as they become healthier in the process. Their access to the preventive aspects alone constitute progress; but far greater progress when bad health habits that predominate in the lower economic strata are curtailed through the incentives that eminate from the Medical MSA experience.

As one can see, we should reject out of hand having such a costly, inefficient, freedom-robbing, power-based entity as the federal government running healthcare. It can be done much cheaper at the private market level without curtailing a laundry list of lost freedoms and onerous taxation. The only reason ObamaCare has earned silence from many of the players at the table (AMA, Pharma, AARP, etc.) is because each have been promised “business as usual” and more. Bribing does not come cheap. ObamaCare will cost more than the current system and cost us much, much–and progressively–more. The nature of this freedom-destroying beast should not be let out of its cage. Instead, get the beast out of the way, and give us the hard-working, ingenious enterprise of freedom and entreprenuership to resolve what’s wrong in healthcare today. Other countries are bound to follow suit.