Carolyn Miller, a health care lobbyist, summed it up best when she said: "The disease is medical costs out of control." Almost nobody is denying that the current system is in trouble. Even President Bush acknowledges that something needs to be done, but is town on what exactly that is. The current questions that arise are, how bad is the current system and what should be done to fix it? Should the system be mended or completely overhauled? It seems that there are as many so-called "solutions" as there problems with the system. Some of these alternatives include: more regulation by the government, complete socialized medicine similar to what Canada has, and preventative medicine. Regardless of the solution picked, time is shot and so is the amount of help Americans are receiving under the present system . To understand the solutions to the problem at hand one must first be aware of and understand this problem. The largest flaw in the system is its' inefficiencies. Dr. Mary Jane England said that this is due to the two "I" words. The "I" words are lack of information and abundance of insurance. Since everybody is not as knowledgeable as their local doctor, patients cannot decide which treatment they need and how much of the treatment they need. This screams of corruption, there are dishonest people everywhere and the status quo is testimony of that. The other problem, too much insurance, means that people know that their insurance will pay for what they need.
This, in turn, leads to consumers using insurance every time they get the slightest ailment. Costs have no meaning for suppliers and consumers and therefore there is no push for efficiency. Without an efficient system, there are bound to be money problems.
The other major problem with the health care system is government involvement. Congress and states have made deliberate efforts to drive up health costs through mandates. The result is a large number of small companies are having to give up health insurance due to these cost increases. This process is best seen in Medicaid. In 1980, Medicaid was only 9 percent of the state's budget. This was due to the extension of benefits to non-welfare poor women in 1984, and to working families whose incomes were at welfare levels. Another thing that Congress has done is to create more regulations. According to Warren Brooks, "Congress has deliberately created a health care crisis to force Americans to beg for a governmental monopoly." Brooks goes on to say that if one wants to see why Eastern Europe failed then one needs only to look at the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale under the Health Care Financing Administration. The Relative Value Scale, according to Robert Moffit, is comparable worth for doctors and instead of controlling costs it may actually drive them up. This is because the doctors have to shift the costs back to the private sector and by mis-allotting medical resources. This occurs because these regulations ignore the law of supply and demand. The Relative Value Scale is not flexible to this economic principle. Although the government tries to help the system through its regulation, this regulation has undoubtedly backfired.
Now that the problem has been addressed, one must ask himself, "What should be done?" There are many alternatives to the present system but most seem to have apparent drawbacks. The first alternative is socialized medicine. There are many flaws with this. First this is completely opposite of what is practiced in a capitalistic economy. This reversal of the American way could be disastrous, as one can see the effects of socialism in Eastern Europe. Another flaw is the inefficiency of the government to fulfill its tasks. It is almost common knowledge that the private industry can do it more efficiently.
Empirical evidence also shows that socialized medicine does not work. Canadians have crossed the border and are invading Detroit hospitals trying to be helped. Another solution is more government regulation. The drawbacks of this area that this regulation usually backfires and increases the costs. One needs only to look past examples of regulation not working to see this. Another alternative that seems almost sadistic is the utilitarian belief. This largely supported by former Governor Richard Lamm, of Colorado. Lamm believes that, "the elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way." He also went on to say that those resources used by the elderly could be used to benefit those with longer lives to live. This believe clearly ignores the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are required to follow. The Oath recognizes the uniqueness of human life and the medical profession as a "priesthood" to administer medicine in a manner designed to preserve life. One would seriously doubt that society will change its beliefs on the role of doctors after hundreds of years of believing in the Hippocratic Oath. The only alternative that actually seems feasible is preventive medicine combined with smart consumer shopping. Society should spend more time exercising and eating right rather than spending horrendous amounts of money designing an artificial heart. This coupled with smart consumer shopping would lead to substantial savings for everyone. People must realize that they can shop for good buys, cheap insurance, and honest doctors, rather than expecting Uncle Sam to pick up the tab.
Although the present system has many problems, it is not too late to stop the current trend of rising costs and disappearing care. People must weed through the pseudo-solutions and see that the ball is in their court. It is up to the individual to help himself and solve the problems of the system. The individual is not helpless, contrary to the attempt by Congress to make this a reality.