A National Health Care Strategy

By Richard J. Meyer

The voters have made it clear + we must have an understandable and affordable health care strategy.

A national health care strategy will simplify our existing, convoluted system on a cost effective basis, while reducing the pressure on States to provide for the uninsured. It will ease the burden for business owners and can also reduce the cost of workersʼ compensation insurance.

Our society pays 15 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for medical care ,while the average cost for other developed countries is less than 10 percent. Very simply, people want a national plan that is affordable and understandable. It is our job to provide efficient, cost -effective change in health care. As the voters and I formulate a strategy, we have two significant hurdles to clear.

• Cost containment
• A viable insurance industry

The insurance industry and health care providers are massive in size and power. It makes no sense to devise a strategy that would eliminate either. These industries have developed invaluable skills that will always be needed. Any national plan should view service providers as friends, not enemies; and, it should probably be an optional plan that would be phased in over time to avoid disruptions of service.

REASONS FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE STRATEGY

1. Business owners: Employers should not be in the business of providing health care for their employees. Originally, health care was considered a fringe benefit; today, it has become a core benefit. When I sold medical insurance in 1970, a good 80/20 health plan cost ten dollars per month.

2. Mobility: Too many people stay in dead-end jobs, just to keep their health insurance benefits. We are a people raised in freedom. If we lose our freedom of job choice, we stunt the most precious entrepreneurial force with which the nation is blessed.

3. Level Playing Field: Businesses are not competing on a level playing field. One provides full benefits; another provides partial benefits, another no benefits. Some employees with no benefits often quit their jobs and jettison any assets they have so that they can obtain some of the most expensive health services available through Medicaid, MediCal, or other State benefits. This is not fair to the employer that has provided benefits in good faith or to the taxpayers who fund Medicaid, MediCal, and the other programs.

4. Workers Compensation: If people are broke because wages are not enough to live on, they will figure out a way to manipulate the system by taking unfair advantage of other medical care options such as workers compensation. Thus, workers compensation insurance costs become more of a burden on employers. A uniform national health strategy can provide for a reasonable amount of the high expenses paid by business owners for workers compensation insurance.

5. Uniformity: When I go to a carnival, I expect a certain amount of trickery. It is fun to try to outwit the circus barker. But when it comes to life and death health issues, don't want to gamble on options I don't understand. The lack of a uniform national plan is like living in an area where each electric company provides different voltages on their lines: one provides 120 volts, another 150 volts and another 200 volts. Such a lack of uniformity would be as dangerous as it would be inefficient. Our lack of a national health care standard is a primary source of the problem. The out-of-control cost of the life-and-death problems associated with medical care and prescription drugs is both a scandal and a tragedy.

I am determined to help create a health care system that will provide understandable and affordable care to every American. I will provide more details of a plan in future publications. It will address the issues raised in my discussions with the citizens of the 45th Congressional District. The plan will provide coverage for all Americans, and it will be affordable and understandable. Regardless of how we fund the national health care strategy, I want to get the overall cost of health care down from the current 15% of GDP to less than 10% of GDP.

How?

• A uniform and simple health care strategy could significantly reduce administrative costs. Some people say this savings could be as high as 20% of the total health care costs. (i.e. 3% of GDP)
• A significant co-pay feature of the strategy can help to reduce overall health care expenses by up to 15%. (i.e. 2.25% of GDP)