PaulHsiehMD's blog

Richard Ralston, executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine asks this question in his latest OpEd:

Yes, this is a shameless plug! (And no, I don't get any money for article sales.)

The Fall 2008 issue of The Objective Standard will be carrying my article on mandatory insurance and the Massachusetts health plan entitled, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America".

The full text is only available to subscribers, but nonsubscribers can purchase copies of the PDF file here for only $4.95. The print edition of the journal will also be available for purchase in many Barnes & Noble bookstores.

For those who are interested, here is the free preview of the opening section:

Today's edition of the Rocky Mountain News printed my OpEd supporting free market health care reform and opposing Colorado Amendment 56 (which would require businesses with more than 20 employees to purchase health insurance for all its workers.)

-------------------------

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/19/hsieh-free-market-refo...

Free market reforms healthier than Amendment 56

By Paul Hsieh, MD, Special to the Rocky
Friday, September 19, 2008

This fall, Colorado voters must decide whether to require all businesses with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance for their employees (Amendment 56). Although voters may be tempted to say "yes," this is an immoral and impractical solution to the problem of rising health insurance costs.

It is morally wrong because it violates the rights of employers and employees to negotiate to their mutual self-interest in a free market.

Businessmen create jobs through rational thought and hard work. Consequently, they have the moral right to decide on what terms to offer those jobs to prospective employees, including specific wages and benefits.

Similarly, workers have the right to negotiate for any specific wages and benefits they desire, and the right to reject job offers that don't meet their criteria. But they have no right to demand a specific salary or benefit from employers (such as health insurance) via government force.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, a lot:

* A family purchasing a health insurance policy in Wisconsin would pay about $3,087, but that policy would cost $10,398 in New Jersey.

* A similar policy in Utah would cost $3,259, compared to $12,254 in New York.

* A family policy in Michigan would cost $4,118, but an astronomical $16,897 in Massachusetts.

Thus, the difference in premiums is largely the result of state mandates that inhibit the creation of a national market, not regional variations in health care costs.

Read the whole thing for more information as well as some proposed free market solutions.

The September 7, 2008 New York Times has printed my LTE on health care "reform" in Massachusetts. They edited it slightly from the version I submitted, but kept the essential meaning intact, including the concept that "health care is not a right".

It is the 7th (final) letter on this page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/opinion/l07Medicare.html

To the Editor:

Far from being a "success," Massachusetts health care "reform" has cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars more than anticipated and created long waits for care.

The Massachusetts system is just socialized medicine in a new guise. It is no coincidence that the long waits for care in the state resemble the long bread lines in the Soviet Union.

The fundamental problem with the Massachusetts system (or any system of "universal health care") is that it erroneously treats health care as a "right." There is no such thing as "right" to a good or service that must be created by others — that's just state-sanctioned theft or slavery. The problems in Massachusetts are the inevitable result.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo., Aug. 30, 2008

The writer is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Dr. Steven Knope was recently interviewed by the Arizona Republic about his concierge medicine practice. When Blue Cross/Blue Shield Insurance (BC/BS) heard about it, they chose to terminate his contract.

BC/BS claimed that they were "looking out for their members", to make sure that physicians charge the agreed-upon rates to BC/BS patients. But Knope points out that when he sees his concierge patients, it's a matter of private contract between him and them. According to this article in the September 5, 2008 Arizona Republic:

Knope... said he doesn't submit insurance claims to Blue Cross or any other insurance company for his 120 concierge patients. However, he has another 100 patients who are not part of his concierge practice. If Blue Cross terminates his contract, he said he will be forced to drop some of those patients.

"It is not going to hurt me financially, but it is going to hurt my (traditional-practice) patients," Knope said. Blue Cross "is hurting no one but their own members."

Rather than protecting their patients, BC/BS's actions look more like an effort to intimidate him and other like-minded physicians in an attempt to stifle a competing business model.

Fortunately, it appears that BC/BS's tactic will backfire. As Dr. Knope notes:

A Canadian reader pointed me towards this defense of private medical care in Canada from an LTE in the August 23, 2008 National Post:

Dr. Linda Halderman tackles another frequently asked question about nationalized health care:

Q: If socialized medicine is so bad, why do people in countries with government or single-payer healthcare live longer?

Here are excerpts from her answer:

A: Life expectancy in the U.S. compared with that of other countries is often cited to condemn the American healthcare system; the uninsured are dying from lack of health insurance and treatment, it is argued, while countries with universal coverage live longer as the result of their healthcare systems.

But is life expectancy primarily dependent on having health insurance? Is access to healthcare services the main determinant of longevity?

...Motor vehicle fatalities are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 1-29. Driving under the influence of alcohol is the most common factor in fatal crashes. For every reported death related to a motor vehicle crash, it is estimated that thirteen individuals are injured severely enough to require hospitalization.

...Supporters of government-provided healthcare often attribute longevity to healthcare access without considering the impact of other factors. Healthcare access in the U.S. has less of an impact on mortality statistics than trauma.

She also discusses obesity, smoking and crime, concluding:

Massachusetts blogger Paula Hall dissects the latest problem with Massachusetts' universal health care -- lack of dental care -- in her recent blog post, "A Pocket Full of Insurance and no Dental Care to Buy".

Here are some excerpts she's selected from the following article in the August 7, 2008 Boston Globe. Again, it highlights the fact that "coverage" is not the same as actual care:

Dr. Brian Schwartz, health care blogger for the Independence Institute, takes on the latest NY Times opinion piece by Paul Krugman singing the praises of government-run "universal" health care. Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Schwartz's piece:

If citizens of these other wealthy countries have guaranteed care, can Dr. Krugman explain to me to following instances of people in these countries not getting needed medical care: