Nobody can, today, question the need for reform of our health system. The cost of medical services continues to grow and every day there are more people who are uninsured. Most Americans see the need to work harder and longer hours in order to pay for health insurance.
Despite this reality, we must admit that the medical services in the U.S. are of the highest quality, probably the best in the world. We have the best doctors and hospitals and no one wins in terms of developing innovative medical technologies. So much so that the vast majority of Americans-about 80 – is satisfied with the quality of our system. Moreover, thousands come from other countries each year, most rich countries to offer its entire population access to medical services, for medical treatment here, precisely because they recognize how advanced and sophisticated than is medicine in America.
One wonders, therefore, why President Obama is so obsessed with radically restructure the health system, in throwing it all away, instead of trying to preserve the good and fix what’s wrong? All Washington knows that the president and his Democratic colleagues in Congress favor the so-called “public choice”, ie where any citizen, regardless of economic status, may opt for health insurance, Medicare rate, provided and managed by the government.
A policy of national insurance market would draw many private insurers, which would make it impossible to compete with the government and, as there is less competition, it would jeopardize the quality of medical services in the country and the ability of each citizen to choose his own doctor, hospital and type of coverage and, in any way, reduce the cost of services, that is, after all, the basis of the problem.
Those who support the government to establish their own insurance, with the massive bureaucracy that would result, they argue that this new insurance would work basically the same as Medicare. No mention, however, that the Medicare program is too costly and that is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Moreover, a new government bureaucracy would be so inefficient that, just as happens with Medicare, many physicians would choose not to accept government insurance or withdraw from practice if they are not privately insured patients. It would also lead to the imposition of a system of rationing of medical services, such as in Europe, where patients are denied treatment to save money.
The reality is that Obama’s proposal would not fix the system rather destroy it. The solution is not implode the system, but make adjustments to the existing system to reduce the high cost of medical services and to ensure their access to quality services to all Americans.
Instead of dismantling our health care system, it seems much more effective to deal with the circumstances that produce the high cost of medical services. We know that treating patients with predictable health conditions, caused by obesity, for example, costs us billions of dollars a year. In fact, three of every four dollars spent on medical services are aimed at addressing chronic diseases, many of them completely preventable. As true reform should take measures to promote prevention.
Another situation that makes us spend over 200 billion dollars a year are frivolous lawsuits for medical malpractice. A patient must have access to a remedy if a victim of malpractice by a doctor, but resources are unfounded located to the increased cost of services because physicians are required to carry out a number of tests and procedures unnecessary as defensive measures to try to avoid litigation. Even President Obama, however, strongly opposes the measures necessary to limit these lawsuits without merit.
The promoting competition, setting a national market for private health insurance, also greatly help reduce insurance costs and increase choice of doctors and services that a patient would have access. Families, small businesses, community organizations and churches should have the option to buy a cheap insurance policy in a state that is not theirs to give you access to doctors and treatments in their home state.
Ensure that all Americans can receive adequate health care is an achievable goal, but should get a smart way. Imposing government control over the health system or an excessive role this would not solve the problem, by the tell, would create a new and possibly much more serious.
Alfonso Aguilar was director of the Bureau of Citizenship Immigration Service under the administration of George W. Bush.
Nobody can, today, question the need for reform of our health system. The cost of medical services continues to grow and every day there are more people who are uninsured. Most Americans see the need to work harder and longer hours in order to pay for health insurance.
Despite this reality, we must admit that the medical services in the U.S. are of the highest quality, probably the best in the world. We have the best doctors and hospitals and no one wins in terms of developing innovative medical technologies. So much so that the vast majority of Americans-about 80 – is satisfied with the quality of our system. Moreover, thousands come from other countries each year, most rich countries to offer its entire population access to medical services, for medical treatment here, precisely because they recognize how advanced and sophisticated than is medicine in America.
One wonders, therefore, why President Obama is so obsessed with radically restructure the health system, in throwing it all away, instead of trying to preserve the good and fix what’s wrong? All Washington knows that the president and his Democratic colleagues in Congress favor the so-called “public choice”, ie where any citizen, regardless of economic status, may opt for health insurance, Medicare rate, provided and managed by the government.
A policy of national insurance market would draw many private insurers, which would make it impossible to compete with the government and, as there is less competition, it would jeopardize the quality of medical services in the country and the ability of each citizen to choose his own doctor, hospital and type of coverage and, in any way, reduce the cost of services, that is, after all, the basis of the problem.
