ElectionAnalysis.com
Archive: 06/20/2004

John Kerry does have a plan for health care in the United States. It's called socialism, and it's very similar to the boondoggle nearly forced upon the American people by Hillary Clinton during the first year of the Clinton Administration.

What Kerry would do is remove the single most important incentive that exists for pushing the state of the art in medicine forward- the profit motive. Like it or not, most new drugs and new medical technologies and procedures are developed today by large corporations owned by many thousands of stockholders. The management of those companies have a legal and moral responsibility to make a profit for their stockholders.

The cold, hard facts are, new drugs and new medical technologies and procedures are very expensive to develop, and John Kerry would destroy the profit-making ability of the companies which do that development, resulting in a stagnant research environment.

If the reasoning behind this is not clear, all one has to do is imagine what will happen financially to that lucky drug manufacturer that finally invents a truly effective AIDS vaccine. In our present system the answer is- they will make billions for their stockholders. But if Kerry has his way, that company would be forced to distribute that vaccine for free. The net result will be, they will have very little motivation to spend the millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours necessary to develop it.

In Kerry's own words he has threatened to institute a socialized "national" health program, and force drug companies to take a loss on recouping costs for new and better drug development. The net results of just those two antiquated and ineffective ideas will be- poor quality care about like people receive from the DMV, and less and less research into new and better drugs and vaccines.

A far better answer is President Bush's plan to rely on the very thing which made America great- the entrepreneurial spirit. He will incentivize those industry leaders and medical researchers to make those breakthroughs and develop those technologies, knowing they can and will be rewarded for their efforts. This is what drove Thomas Edison to invent the light bulb, and Alexander Graham Bell to invent the telephone. Captains of industry like Henry Ford and George Westinghouse would never have achieved the incredible progress they did, if they had a man like John Kerry as president.

President Bush also will help small businesses band together to purchase more and better health care for their employees, and provide another 1.8 billion for development of more community health care centers, where uninsured people can get good, affordable health care. The National Assn. of Community Health Centers, a nonprofit organization that represents the clinic network has expressed enthusiastic support for Bush's plan to further develop the networks of centers.

It's no accident that people come here from Canada and from all over the world for treatment. It's because the US has the finest health care system, by far, of anywhere in the world. The bottom line is, if the average American is planning to be sick anytime soon, they had better hope that John Kerry will not be the president when they do. Just imagine the entire health care system in the United States being run just like the IRS or the DMV, or some other government bureaucracy.

Anyone can make history. Only a great man can write it..
- Oscar Wilde

Everyone agrees that something has to be done about the antiquated Medicare/Medicaid system and the private sector?s upwardly spiraling prices. Neither Bush?s avoidance of radical changes or Kerry?s giant subsidies Band-Aid will help ensure price stability in the health care market. Some things both viewpoints agree on are: modernizing the administration of the health care industry, especially Medicare/Medicaid; a non-descript political buzzword "Patients bill of Rights"; expanding coverage especially to children; extending Medicaid to ease welfare to work transitions; investing in advanced research to ensure that America?s health care continually gets better; making it easier for small businesses to provide affordable health care to their employees; providing inexpensive and reliable electronic medical records; and reigning in the out of control liability insurance doctors must carry, through legal system reforms.

Bush?s plan has some advantages over Kerry?s plan. First and most notably it is rather less expensive than Kerry?s plan, up to $40 billion per year over current levels compared to Kerry?s $65.3 billion. Bioterrorism is something that Kerry seems to ignore altogether while Bush is attempting to increase spending by $4.5 billion per year on "bioterrorism preparedness". The president also claims he will work with congress to make genetic discrimination illegal. Another important issue of contention is a cap in the dollar amounts awarded for non-economic damages in mal practice suits. While Bush wants to put a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, Kerry believes that there should be no such cap.

Kerry?s ideas also have some advantages over Bush?s policies. For example Kerry purports that his plan will extend medical coverage to nearly 95% of Americans, a percentage he is unlikely to ever achieve, but sure sounds good. An excellent idea proposed by Kerry is to make incentives given to pharmacy benefit managers transparent, this would encourage PBMs to pass on savings to the more than 200 million Americans who?s drug benefits are managed by the PBMs. Another great point addressed by the Kerry plan is reducing the number of medical errors made in the industry by offering incentives to fix and prevent future errors. A rather strange Kerry initiative would make the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program available to all Americans. It seems as if Kerry wants to make the federal government into a health insurance company.

Obviously both plans are extremely expensive, at a time when federal deficits are growing rapidly one must question the wisdom of yet more spending. Kerry?s plan is like socialized medicine in disguise. His idea to make the federal government into an HMO will cost far more money than the ten year estimated cost of $253 billion. Bush?s plan spends way more than necessary on areas that don?t seem to be hugely beneficial, such as his $4.5 billion per year increase in bioterrorism funding (2002 base levels were $1.4 billion). Although Kerry seems to have a better grasp on some of the fundamental challenges facing the health care industry, his socialistic ideas are too expensive and over the top.

Health care companies seem to be in the business of avoiding cost at any measure. Not only do they avoid it, they encourage any kind of behavior that promotes a healthy bottom line, including allowing the most needy of sick people to go without coverage. The HMOs have such-and-such a policy that coincidentally makes monthly premiums for those who suffer from high-cost illnesses too expensive to afford, keeping the costs down at the expense of the sick person who needs only help.

But Kerry?s plan ? and one that remains unopposed in this latest election for president ? is one of action and candor that speaks to the needy everyman and corporate bottom line alike. Kerry?s plan proposes that the government foot the bill for any cost over and above $50,000, payable directly to the HMO. Simply, the great costs that the health care organizations are so intent on avoiding has been negated: the United States government comes to the rescue at a dollar amount that seems fair to all.

This is fair but also forward thinking. As the high cost burden is relieved from the HMO by the government, the HMO has eased restrictions and monthly premiums to businesses and individuals, creating a thing that has been far too long since accorded: fair and equitable health care to the United States citizenry.

No longer would hospitals be slogged down by uninsured patients who require care; those people would be more likely insured due to eased restrictions by HMOs. No longer would lower middle class citizens remain sick for extended periods of time and lose their jobs to difficult bosses who have problems of their own; affordable health care has been provided by their low-paying employer due to its affordability. No longer would the system perpetuate stagnation for seniors who receive light social security checks and then turn them over to HMOs and pharmacies for medications to ease their aches and pains; prescription medication would become low in cost for those in the most need.

Think of the sense this makes. $50,000 is not so much that the health care companies run in fear, and not so little that the American public cries outrage over handouts for the undeserving. As it stands, most of the people who need this kind of monetary assistance are getting it free from of the government anyway, as insurance companies have abandoned them already and the hospitals won?t turn them away.

You?ll see ? Kerry and his people have devised this plan as a means of assisting both individual and company. The government may end of spending a little more on health care, yes, but the average man who needs health insurance will be cared for in a manner hitherto unheard of and by the very people who once shunned him as unable to pay: HMOs.