Health care reform: A better plan
WASHINGTON In 1986, Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley created a legislative miracle. They fashioned a tax reform that stripped loopholes, political favors, payoffs, patronage and other corruptions out of the tax system. With the resulting savings, they lowered tax rates across the board. Those reductions, combined with eliminating the enormous inefficiencies and perverse incentives that go into tax sheltering, helped propel a 20-year economic boom.
In overhauling any segment of our economy, the 1986 tax reform should be the model. Yet today’s ruling Democrats propose to fix our extremely high-quality (but inefficient and therefore expensive) health care system with 1,000 pages of additional curlicued complexity—employer mandates, individual mandates, insurance company mandates, allocation formulas, political payoffs and myriad other conjured regulations and interventions—with the promise that this massive concoction will lower costs.
This is all quite mad. It creates a Rube Goldberg system that simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care. That’s why the administration can’t sell Obamacare.
The administration’s defense is to accuse critics of being for the status quo. Nonsense. Candidate John McCain and a host of other Republicans since have offered alternatives. Let me offer mine: Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy. The plan is so simple it doesn’t even have the requisite three parts. Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.
(1) Tort reform: As I wrote recently, our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone’s insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.
An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals—amounting to about 25 percent of the total—solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant—$20,000 for a family of four—to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).
What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.
The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.
(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It’s economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.
The health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.
Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. Candidate John McCain advocated it. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.
But that’s a political problem of Obama’s own making. As is the Democratic Party’s indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn’t change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare’s new ones—arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Aug 8, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
whythink, if you want to look at an orginized effort look here http://action.seiu.org/page/s/sebeliusca...
Aug 7, 2009 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Serious questions for those in favor of reform: Why not address the problem(s) without a mass change to the whole system?
Fear of bankruptcy, this is not addressed; if you miss work for an illness nothing in these proposals will help you avoid a bankruptcy.
Pre-existing condition(s); this is an easy one to fix, pass a law preventing insurance companies from these restrictions.
Cost; the vast majority of people now have no idea what it costs for care, proposing a “new” coverage/program/insurance/payer does not reduce cost. Consumer demand and supply of care will set the price if left to the open market---not done in our current system now and not addressed by this administration or congress.
If reform is needed right now, why does the current proposal(s) not go into effect for 4 years?
Aug 7, 2009 at 10:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whythink, reading a memo and finding correlation to events in other parts of the country is a far cry from organization or a staged event(s) as you previously claimed. You have mastered first grade math but you have failed at judging peoples determination and motivation.
You are right that is doesn’t take genius to follow an instruction manual; or in this case a memo. Just as it does not take a genius to follow an e-mail from a political party, union group, or the Presidents own White House.
Aug 7, 2009 at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
The insurance industry is desperately doing whatever it takes to ditch health care reform. I hope Chuckie's check is in the mail.
Aug 7, 2009 at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
What Mr. Conyers admitted is inexcusable. ANY member of Congress who WON'T take the time or make an effort to understand legislation that's been but before them for consideration should be impeached immediately. I suspect there are many on both sides of the aisle that don't take time to fully understand what it is they are voting on, only that it follows party lines. We deserve better than what the majority of Republican or Democrat members of Congress provide. I'm sick of a government owned by corporate and special interests, of Congressmen only concerned with towing the party line instead of actively seeking solutions to poverty, affordable health care, trade imbalances and economic reforms.
Charles makes some good points but takes a far too simplistic view of the changes necessary for true health care reform. Over the years, our misapplication of health care has skewed our vision of how that care should be delivered. Personally, I believe a single payer system could & should put the onus of health care on the person, not the “system”. There has never been any incentive for individuals to be responsible for their own health. Instead, our current system is geared to treat the consequences rather than focus on prevention. What has taken years to form will also take years to change but change it must if we are to relieve the financial stresses it places not only on individuals but business as well. As a small business owner, I should not be expected to shoulder the burden of providing the dollars necessary to reform our health care system even with tax breaks. Ultimately much of those expenses are passed on to my customer base putting even more stress on the bottom line. Health cooperatives present a better business model through which health care could be administered. Insurance companies eat up 30% of our health care dollar.
Aug 7, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
These protesters are so stupid they booed the guy doing the introductions. Conservatives are a minority that wants to give the appearance of being in the majority when they are NOT.
First off, this malpractice issue is a GIANT MYTH. As a child I spent a month in intensive care because of a doctor's mistake and was rewarded NOTHING because you can't get anything unless the mistake causes permanent damage. So, once again the Whoville reject is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Aug 7, 2009 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
I dislike posting links or videos to often to try and prove a point, but in this instance it seems appropriate.Watch this video clip if you like and notice what the people are shouting at about 1:11 into it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yliMFYBj0...
-
Now, be this staged or not, grass roots or astro-turf, is this NOT a legitimate request we should all have of our representatives?
-
And is this an appropriate response?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlc...
Aug 7, 2009 at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
well RAF, I have heard this memo cited on several shows and in other articles questioning the authenticity(sp?) of these protests.
.
It really doesn't matter. Anybody and show up at a Townhall meeting, and to avoid a discussion on the topic, shout really loud and disrupt a meeting.
.
It doesn't take a genius to follow the instruction manual.
.
You may believe that memo doesn't have much pull but don't you find it interesting that people appear to be following those instructions at these townhall meetings?
.
You can question my intelligence all you want it really doesn't impact me. I see people showing up with the purpose of disruption, not conversation. I see a memo saying, show up with the purpose of disruption, not conversation.
.
I see 2+2=4.
Aug 7, 2009 at 10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, did you check out the White House web page encouraging Dems to stage support for the plan? Or better yet - the head of the SEIU John Sweeney saying he'd send in his union thugs and Reid saying they'd "punch back twice as hard"? Looks like the Dems are seeing immediate success in St. Louis, where they're assigned special seating and allowed to come in side doors and beat up black conservatives.
You can't make this stuff up people! This is Barack Obama's Chicago political machine in 5th gear!
Aug 7, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
whythink are you really that ignorant? Did you look into any of what you posted? The bottom of your so-called smoking gun lists a website. If you would research before you drank the koolaid and made yourself look so foolish you would have found that this group has a PAC. Yes, that is right a PAC, with less than 5,000 dollars.
Do tell how a group of 5-6 people with less than 5 grand are organizing these efforts of the "grand conspiracy".
Did you also know the Unions, the Presidents PAC, as well as the Dem party are participating in these events? Try guessing how much money they are spending...it is safe to assume they have more than 5 grand to spend.
Aug 7, 2009 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uplo...
.
the instruction manual on how to disrupt the Democrats townhall meetings.
.
Protests are infact, S T A G E D !
Aug 7, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
bottomline:
Is anyone "ok" with the health insurance industry reporting record PROFITS?
.
Can't we all agree that HEALTH INSURANCE should be NON-PROFIT?
.
It used to be.
Aug 7, 2009 at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
ARRRRGH-Where in the world do you get the notion people would have two insurance policies? AAARRRRRGGHH-read the article beore you AAARRGGHHHH make dumb comments.
Aug 7, 2009 at 8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
ARRRRGH! (2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
So now we be havin two health insurance policies? I don't think I be needen two. I be thinkin Chucky should read what he wrights before he submits.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It’s economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.
I be wonderin what he wants,sounds like he be rowin with one ore in the water!
RAmen
Aug 7, 2009 at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
This makes way too much sense for Democrats to favor any part of it.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.