An Open Letter to the American People on Health Care

By Jason Kerwin and Samuel Wilder King II

This article was first published in the Honolulu Advertiser on September 27th, 2009 http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090927/OPINION03/909270341/1108/OPINION02/Retiring-at-older-age-saves-Medicare

An Open Letter to the American People on Health Care

The year is 2080. Half of the entire American Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is dedicated to Social Security and Medicare, and interest on debt to finance those programs. Then a financial crisis drives the US government bankrupt. The government’s inability to fund Medicare and Social Security leaves millions of senior citizens with no means of support and no backup plans. Without fundamental changes, this will be America’s future. While health care reform is vital, President Obama and Congress are ignoring the critical point that even if health care costs go down Social Security and Medicare will still be unsustainable.

When Social Security began in 1935, someone who lived to 65 expected to live to 77. Today, that person would live to 83. Medicare was created in 1965 as part of Social Security legislation, so it used the same minimum age. The Social Security retirement age has increased by just two years in the last seven decades, and Medicare still starts at age 65.

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention,

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf

What makes this a problem is the huge number of people approaching retirement. Baby Boomers did not have as many children as their parents, and their children had even fewer, so each year the number of workers supporting each person on benefits drops.

Source: US Census Bureau,

www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/country.php,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uspop.svg

The best option to keep these programs viable is to increase the eligibility age by one month for every three calendar months without increasing benefit payouts – starting now. This is a simple solution that requires no new government bureaucracy. We should continue this increase until the average person receives benefits for 12 years, just as they did in 1935. Today, that would mean a retirement age of 76. This will decrease costs and increase the number of people paying money into the system. Since people live longer today, retirements should start later. Doing it gradually allows people to adjust their retirement plans and prevents a sudden collapse of the US economy like the 2008 financial crisis.

The chart below, provided by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, shows that with current trends, spending on health care alone will ruin the country’s financial position in 70 years. The red line represents projected government revenues as a percent of GDP (the total annual income of the entire country). It outlines the future we described above – Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will totally consume government revenues by 2080, and total government spending will be 60% of GDP.

whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/financial_pdf/08guide.pdf

One way to estimate the savings from pushing the retirement age back is to look at how much we would have saved if it were already higher. Based on numbers provided by the Department of Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation, we calculate that an eligibility age of 76 would have saved Medicare about $80 billion in 2002 out of a total cost of around $230 billion. A 2000 AARP study published in the Social Security Bulletin had similar results, estimating that increasing Medicare eligibility to 70 by 2040 would cut costs by $67.3 billion in that year. Our plan would have an eligibility age at 75 by 2040, yielding higher savings.

We also estimate that if Social Security’s retirement age were 76 today we would save approximately $280 billion in 2009, out of a total of $660 billion. Moving the eligibility age upwards, so that it remains in line with life expectancy over time, reduces long-run Social Security costs by as much as 40% and Medicare costs by up to one-third. It also increases the number of people in the workforce, further shoring up the system. Poor seniors would still be covered by Medicaid; we could implement additional programs targeting the needy without a large impact on savings.

In the end raising the retirement age makes sense. People live longer today, which is a wonderful thing. In concert with other cost-control reforms currently being discussed, revising the retirement age upward will reduce the fiscal impact of Social Security and Medicare and help prevent their collapse. Doing it slowly will allow people to adapt their retirement plans now rather then letting them count on a system that is guaranteed to fail. Best of all, it is simple, cheap, and requires no additional government bureaucracy.

Samuel Wilder King II is a Punahou ’02 and Georgetown ’06 graduate. He served as a political consultant in Baghdad from March to December 2008 and is currently managing Adrienne King’s campaign for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor in Hawaii. His blog can be found at thekinginstitute.blogspot.com. He is a registered Republican.

Jason Kerwin is a Punahou ’02 and Stanford ’06, MA ’07 graduate, and worked for the last two years as a researcher studying cost control in Medicare. His work is published on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services website: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Reports/downloads/MaCurdy.pdf, http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HealthCareFinancingReview/downloads/09SummerPg33.pdf

He is currently a first-year doctoral student in economics at the University of Michigan. He is a registered Democrat.

Why McCain, Lieberman and Graham are my favorite Senators

I stole this article straight from the Wall Street Journal Website to ensure that it never disappears from the web or gets locked behind a pay-wall. These three Senators have said exactly what I think (and indeed what I said in my article in the Honolulu Advertiser in June this year http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jun/21/op/hawaii906210340.html).

The one thing I believe they expressed perfectly that I did not was the nature of our mistakes in Afghanistan:

"Their (critics of the war) doubts are natural and understandable, and we must respond to them directly and clearly. Our problems in Afghanistan are not because the Taliban are invincible or popular. They are neither. Rather, our problems result from what was, for years, a mismanaged and underresourced war."


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404753110979442.html
By LINDSEY GRAHAM, JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN AND JOHN MCCAIN

Growing numbers of Americans are starting to doubt whether we should have troops in Afghanistan and whether the war there is even winnable.

We are confident that not only is it winnable, but that we have no choice. We must prevail in Afghanistan.

We went to war there because the 9/11 attacks were a direct consequence of the safe haven given to al Qaeda in that country under the Taliban. We remain at war because a resurgent Taliban, still allied with al Qaeda, is trying to restore its brutal regime and re-establish that country as a terrorist safe haven.

It remains a clear, vital national interest of the United States to prevent this from happening. Yet an increasing number of commentators, including some of the very same individuals who opposed the surge in Iraq and called for withdrawal there, now declare Afghanistan essentially unwinnable. Had their view prevailed with respect to Iraq in 2006 and 2007, the consequences of our failure there would have been catastrophic.

Similarly, the ramifications of an American defeat in Afghanistan would not only be a devastating setback for our nation in what is now the central front in the global war on terror, but would inevitably further destabilize neighboring, nuclear Pakistan. Those who advocate such a course were wrong about Iraq, and they are wrong about Afghanistan.

The growing calls for withdrawal reflect, more than anything, our failure to show progress in the war. After eight years of fighting, the American people see rising casualties and no sign that the tide is turning in our direction.

Their doubts are natural and understandable, and we must respond to them directly and clearly. Our problems in Afghanistan are not because the Taliban are invincible or popular. They are neither. Rather, our problems result from what was, for years, a mismanaged and underresourced war.

Our mistakes are infuriating, but they are also reversible. We traveled to Afghanistan nine months ago and again last month. In the intervening time, a significant shift in our strategic leadership and focus has taken place there.

We have an exceptional new commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has begun a top-to-bottom overhaul of all aspects of our war policy and put forward a dramatically new civil-military strategy that clearly identifies failed policies and prioritizes the proven principles of counterinsurgency, including protecting civilians, creating legitimate and effective governance, and boosting economic development. With Gen. McChrystal, together with a new ambassador and a new deputy commander, we believe we now have the team on the ground that can win this war.

However, we need more than the right team and the right strategy. This team must also have the resources it needs to succeed—including a significant increase in U.S. forces.

More troops will not guarantee success in Afghanistan, but a failure to send them is a guarantee of failure. As we saw in Iraq, numbers matter in counterinsurgency. Protecting the population and developing capable indigenous security forces are inherently manpower-intensive endeavors. Moreover, in the absence of basic security, the other crucial components of successful counterinsurgency—fostering the emergence of effective, legitimate government and economic development—simply cannot get off the ground.

We recognize that a decision to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan will be politically difficult here at home. Some will say we can't afford it. Others will warn the president of "quagmire" and urge him to send either no new forces, or fewer than Gen. McChrystal recommends—perhaps with the promise of "re-evaluating" further deployments later on.

It is precisely this middle path—which the previous administration pursued for too long in Iraq—that is a recipe for quagmire and collapse of political support for the war at home. Mr. Obama was right when he said last year that "You don't muddle through the central front on terror . . . You don't muddle through stamping out the Taliban."

We have reached a seminal moment in our struggle against violent Islamist extremism, and we must commit the "decisive force" that Gen. McChrystal tells us carries the least risk of failure.

We believe that the short-term political reaction from Congress to any increase in troop numbers, no matter how small or large, will be essentially the same. The key question is whether the increase is substantial enough to have a decisive effect on the course of the war within the next 12 to 18 months. If we are to send more of our brave men and women in uniform into harm's way, we should do so in a way that carries the greatest probability of success.

In the interim, the president and his allies—and we count ourselves among them on this issue—must invest significantly greater effort to explain why, as the president recently put it, Afghanistan is a "war of necessity." Additional U.S. resources must be accompanied by significant and meaningful benchmarks that hold the government of Afghanistan and our own government accountable. We must ensure that Afghan leaders are doing their part to combat the corruption and insecurity that undermine the counterinsurgency effort.

We are ready to stand with the president through the tough months ahead, and we believe that strong and steady leadership from the White House can rebuild public support for the war.

The American people also need to hear directly from their commander on the ground. Gen. McChrystal should be called back to Washington to testify before Congress about his new strategy and the resources it will require.

When Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress in September 2007 about the progress of the surge in Iraq, it allowed everyone to make better informed decisions about our war effort and likelihood of success. As members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we believe that there should be the same opportunity with regard to Afghanistan this fall. We are confident that, the more Americans hear from Gen. McChrystal and our other military leaders, the more their confidence in the war will be restored.

The U.S. walked away from Afghanistan once before, following the Soviet collapse. The result was 9/11. We must not make that mistake again.

At last, we have the right strategy and the civilian and military leaders on the ground in Afghanistan to carry it out. This is a must-win war. And now is the time to commit the decisive military force necessary to prevail.

Messrs. Graham and McCain are Republican senators from South Carolina and Arizona, respectively. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

The Somalia Solution

The hardline islamists are contained in the South (Dark Green), while the pirate gangs operate out of Puntland (Blue) mostly. Somaliland (Yellow) has the least pirate activity.

Puntland, like Somaliland, has maintained a large degree of autonomy from the more chaotic South.

These are the sites of the major pirate bases. None of them are located in formerly British Somaliland.

And piracy doesn’t stop in Somalia. It is a global problem. However, we can probably solve Somalia’s problem is the worst, the most recent and the most public.

The Somalia Solution


The recent rescue of the captain of the Maersk Alabama after the killing of his three pirate captors by US Navy Seals has cast new media attention on the piracy problem in Somalia. Many voices have come forward to suggest beefing up security on the high seas against pirates or attacking pirates’ land-based “lairs” in Somalia. Both of these are policy options for the short-term, but in the long-term they will not solve the problem. They will most likely increase the level of violence off the coast of Somalia and, as more US forces and citizens are involved, increase the danger of international terrorist moving into the piracy business against US interests.



The roots of Somalia piracy lie in the anarchy that has gripped that country since the dictatorship of Mohamed Siad Barre collapsed in 1991. Barre ruled Somalia since it’s independence from Britain and Italy in 1960; before that, the northern part of Somalia, know as Somaliland (see map) was ruled by the British. The Italians ruled Puntland and Southern Somalia. The Italian and British parts joined in 1960 after the withdrawal of the colonial powers.



Since Barre’s government collapsed, the US, the UN, the African Union (AU) and Ethiopia have all tried to pacify Southern Somalia centered on Mogadishu. Many people did not notice that international fishing trawlers from as far as South Korea, Japan and Spain were illegally fishing off the coast of Puntland (Northeast Somalia) and driving the local fishermen out of business. There are even reports of European companies dumping toxic and nuclear waste off the coast of Puntland . This could be done because Somalia had no government to protect its territorial waters and no one was monitoring the area.



This prompted many Somali fishermen to begin arming themselves. The foreign fishing vessels shot at them with guns and water hoses so the Somalis began shooting back. They formed the current pirate groups such as the National Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia and the Somali Marines in order to defend their fishing grounds. That is not to say they should be pitied today. While these groups started out defensively, they have morphed over the last 20 years into full-fledged international criminal pirate gangs.



However, their primary origin is critical to remember because it shows us that these groups are not ideological. Rather, they are focused on making money. There are virtually no reports of hostages being killed as the ransoms are usually paid. They appear to be very business oriented.



This is even more important to remember following the media storm of the US Navy SEAL snipers killing the three pirates.



Up until now the pirates have refrained from killing or harming anyone and the international community has been happy to simply pay them the ransoms. At the same time, the pirates have been using their new-found power and money to resist the Islamists who famously swept through Southern Somalia. Those same Islamists were driven out of power by Ethiopia just as stunningly. Few noticed, however, that the Islamists never got very far north. The reason they did not is because the region of Puntland, where most of the pirates are from, has been semi-autonomous from the rest of Somalia and because the pirates had the money and the guns to fight back. This has been demonstrated a couple of times. One of the most famous was when Saudi Arabia’s ARAMCO encouraged the Islamists to drive up to Eyl and recover their Super Tanker Sirius Star. Saudi Arabia ended up paying the ransom as the Islamists failed totally in their mission. The pirates have also clashed with the Islamists in Kismayo and Haradhere (see maps).



If the pirates perceive the US as an enemy because we kill them, the Islamists may be able to sway them into joining their cause for emotional reasons.



If we strengthen our naval efforts to stop the piracy, we may weaken the pirates’ economic and military position relative to the Islamists, tipping the balance in Islamists’ favor and allowing them to sweep through another third of Somalia (they only own the southern third right now [see maps]).



If we bomb the pirates, we will most certainly weaken them relative to the Islamists, on top of pushing them further into the Islamist camp with the inevitable killing of civilians. We will also destroy what little economy there is in Somalia, no matter how illicit, which can only serve to drive the pirates and the populations they support away from us.



Therefore, the only long-term solution to the Somali piracy problem is to look at Somalia as distinct political entities and deal with each accordingly.



Somaliland, the formerly British northern most chunk of Somalia, should be engaged with Free Trade Areas. They hold elections, have a functioning government and have no pirate bases in their territory.



Southern Somalia should be contained. While the “capital” of Somalia, Mogadishu, is down there, and the transitional capital at Baidoa as well, the area itself is a chaotic mess of Islamists and warlords; if the international community got directly involved, as the Ethiopians and AU have, it will probably exacerbate the situation. For now the AU, the Ethiopians, the pirates and the international naval force can keep them contained in Southern Somalia. We can also cut deals with the “moderate” Islamists (Union of Islamic Courts) and split them off from the radicals (the Shabab).



The primary focus of the international community should be in Puntland. It may even be advisable to move the Somali capital to Puntland. After that, serious nation building efforts will have to be undertaken. This will include millions of dollars for establishing the transitional government, building a Somali army, Somali police and a Somali navy. Some of the pirates could even be hired for these positions. This would break the economic back of the pirates and create a whole new employer in Somalia. The pirates are businessmen, primarily, so they can be co-opted into a new government. It isn’t pretty, but history has shown that this is how most human governments have been formed. Eventually the country will draw away from the chaos of piracy and establish itself as a stable country. When that is done, Somaliland and Puntland can turn their focus to dealing with the Islamists in Southern Somalia.





For further reading:



http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13496719



http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=visualization&controller=visualization.googlemap&Itemid=219



http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/somalia.pdf



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Somalia_map_states_regions_districts.png



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia#cite_note-Reuters:_2008-04-23-25



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7650415.stm



http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5huZX1j35evP_2f7juvNifVKrMboQ



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6288745



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731000016149251.html



http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/11/22/brand-winners-and-losers-pirates-and-citigroup.aspx



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/pirates.htm



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/yacht-raid-reveals-hitech-somali-pirate-network-807022.html



http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1892376,00.html



http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/somalia.html



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html

Healthcare reform is necessary. A debate is needed. The one we are having now sucks.

Republicans are going to lose the debate on Healthcare because they are arguing about the wrong issues. In Town Halls all across America “Senior” citizens have been berating AARP representatives and elected officials alike for their support of the wicked Healthcare plans now winding their way through Congress. Two of the issues most cited as evil by “Senior” citizens are the supposed rationing of Healthcare proposed in the bills and the “Death Panels” which will decide whether people get coverage or not at the end of their lives.
Unfortunately, those people defending the Healthcare plans are wrong also, although for entirely different reasons than the ones their harshest critics are upset about. The defenders of Obamacare, as it is currently conceived, have wasted precious time and breath explaining the benefits of things like "death councils." They have also, in a state of panic, removed any and all savings from the Healthcare plans by kowtowing to “Senior” citizens and promising that they will not lose ANY benefits from Medicare at all!
All this has distracted from the essential problem with Healthcare in the United States: Government interference in the Marketplace.
One of the biggest market inefficiencies, Medicare, appears to be totally misunderstood by policy makers. The Healthcare reformers seem to think it is a great system worth expanding. This is a huge issue because Americans are living longer and our society is getting older. Unfortunately the AARP has frightened policy makers with Town Hall terror stories, saying “Old people vote!” so cutting their benefits is impossible. This is not true, and cutting our societies ‘benefits’ is in fact necessary.
The story of Healthcare in America starts in 1935 during the Great Depression and the passing of the first Social Security Act by President Roosevelt. At that time, policy makers and voters envisioned Social Security as a safety net for the very few people that lived to be very old, a way to respect the eldest members of society. That is demonstrated by the fact that the life-expectancy in 1935 for the average American was 62 and the retirement age set by Social Security was 65. In other words, most Americans were dead for 3 years before they began receiving Tax-payer sponsored retirement. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13900145
Today life expectancy in the US, according to the CIA World Factbook, is 78 years old. That means most people will live for 13 years on Welfare (aka Social Security, Medicare). Also, if those people 65 and over actually did retire, that would mean an additional 12.8% of our population would be unemployed, minus any of the over 65 already accounted for in our current near 10% unemployment numbers.
The irony of it is that these “Senior” citizens are not retiring. Social Security and Medicare are not strong enough to support them so they are in fact continuing to work. By virtue of their age they are usually highly experienced as well. That is fantastic for US companies and it is terrible for young-workers entering the job market and competing with people who have 40 years of experience on them. That would not be a problem if those “Senior” workers were also not getting subsidized by the younger workers.
I keep putting “Senior” citizens in quotes because, in the end, it is this assumption that has bankrupted our country. People 65 and over are in no way Senior citizens. They are not old, and anyone who has seen the Baby Boomers on the dance floor rocking out to the music of the 60s and 70s, will agree. I recently attended the Healthcare Town Hall in Hawaii (put on by Republican City Councilman Charles Djou. Djou is running for the House of Representatives seat being vacated by Neil Abercrombie. Since the rest of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation apparently has no respect for Hawaii’s voters' Healthcare concerns, a Republican had to hold the Healthcare Town Hall). The “Senior” citizens at that debate were FULL of energy and more than happy to BERATE the poor AARP representative who was there explaining, “No really, we are going to bankrupt the entire country just to protect your benefits, seriously.” He was telling the truth and they still hated him. 65-and-overs will not be retiring soon either. I know lawyers who are still working who are on Medicare and Social Security. In fact, our “Senior” citizens are FORCED to join Medicare at 65, which is just simply a blatant denial of our fundamental freedoms. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government can force me to join a National Healthcare plan?
I am not suggesting that we ration Medicare or Social Security. I am proposing the phased increase of the retirement age in both plans until they are in parity with the life-expectancy-to-retirement age ratio of 1935. Since we are not just going to raise the retirement age to 78 next year, I suggest that all across the board, the retirement age is pushed back 4 months at the start of every fiscal year. That would probably barely keep up with our increasing life-expectancies, especially since if we pass Healthcare reform we will all be living EVEN LONGER.
The 2nd huge problem with Healthcare that is being totally ignored is the massive Market Inefficiency created by State regulators' monopolies over their own insurance markets. http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-16.pdf The Cato Institute, THE Free Market thinktank in Washington has a great explanation of this because they are obsessed with Free Markets (as they should be since Free Markets have brought more people out of poverty than any force on Earth).
There are many reasons why States having the monopoly on regulation of their insurance markets is a terrible idea, however I believe an historical example is best. Back when our country started, we had the Articles of Confederation. Those Articles allowed States to regulate Interstate Commerce. What happened was that the States all protected their State industries and taxed all goods from neighboring States to raise funds for their State governments. It was a terrible system and it nearly destroyed our country and it was part of the impetus for the creation of the Constitution.
Today, we seem to have ignored this fundamental tenet of the Constitution, that the entire United States is a Free Trade zone, specifically in the insurance market. I quote the Cato Institute:

"The Cure: Force Regulators to Compete
The original sin of health insurance regulation is not guaranteed issue, community rating, any-willing-provider laws, or mandated coverage laws. The original sin of health insurance regulation is insurance-licensing laws. Each state uses insurance-licensing laws to require every insurance policy sold to their residents to comply with all other insurance regulations.
Insurance-licensing laws prohibit individual insurance purchasers from joining insurance pools with residents of other states. Put differently, they prohibit residents from purchasing out-of-state insurance products that come with a different set of regulatory protections. As a result, insurance licensing laws erect barriers to trade between the states and prevent individuals from shopping for regulatory protections the same way they shop for other insurance features. In effect, insurance-licensing laws give each state’s insurance regulators a monopoly over providing regulatory protections. Those regulators then behave the way all monopolists do: they provide a low-quality product at an excessively high cost.
The best solution would be for states to repeal insurance-licensing laws. Doing so would eliminate government’s ability to use regulation to redistribute income, or to shower rents on favored special interests.
Government enforcement of contracts would continue to provide the financial solvency protections and other safeguards that insurance purchasers demand. If that is infeasible politically, preliminary steps could provide nearly as much benefit to consumers.
With an approach known as ‘‘regulatory federalism’’ the federal or state governments would leave most health insurance regulations intact but would allow individuals and employers to purchase health insurance from other states, regulated by that second state. If a purchaser is content with her own state’s regulations, she could continue to purchase a policy regulated at home. But if her state imposes too many mandates, or prevents the insurance pool from protecting itself from irresponsible and opportunistic behavior, then the purchaser could choose an insurance plan with more consumer-friendly regulations."

This would create a regulatory environment much like Corporate Regulation, where States like Delaware have created a niche for themselves as the best Corporate Regulators. For a full explanation of the benefits, I really encourage you to read the Cato link I provided: http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-16.pdf
The final big market inefficiency which our current debate on Healthcare ignores and I will address is the government subsidy of Employer-based Healthcare. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647 This is actually only a small part of a bigger issue, however it is a critical part that is not being covered at all. The bigger issue is that the incentive structure for Doctor’s pay is entirely messed up and it encourages over-consumption of Medical Insurance by consumers.
Employer-based Healthcare does this by hiding the true cost of Healthcare from consumers. Because their employer pays for most of their medical costs, employees will often request unnecessary tests and treatments because they never see the true bill. The current Healthcare debate addresses the critical problem of incentives; however it still ignore the critical issue of the massive subsidy we pay in the form of tax breaks for companies providing Healthcare. Individuals buying their own Healthcare do not get similar tax breaks.
The one big lie in the current debate where it does touch on Employer-based coverage, is that you will be able to keep your coverage http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/06/what_will_happen_to_your_healt.cfm. While President Obama has repeatedly stated that you can keep whatever plan you wish, the truth is that if you do keep your employer-based plan, the cost will increase if the benefits stay the same.
In summary, I have not read everything there is to read about Healthcare. I have not read all 5 bills currently before Congress. What I have noted here comes from my observations of various Town Halls, the News Media, Print Media and months of arguing with my family and friends. The ideas I have laid out here (Increasing the retirement age, eliminating State regulatory monopolies and replacing the subsidized Employer-based Healthcare tax break with a tax-break for individuals with Healthcare) are not the only problems. Drug companies need to be better regulated so generics come on line faster. Doctor’s incentives need to be fixed. Tort reform is required to cut back on Mal-practice insurance. However, the three main points I have outlined have been largely ignored in the current debate. If they are not addressed, any Healthcare reform passed by Congress will really just be an exercise in futility, one which we will not be able to afford, literally.
Most importantly, no matter what reform passes, this is a debate that needs to be had. I give President Obama credit for starting it. However, his demonizing of the Town Hall protesters ignores their real fears and concerns. His attempt to ram huge changes in our Healthcare system without a national conversation about it could doom us to having a terrible system and it gives reform (which is necessary) a bad name. The Town Hall protesters also need to learn respect. They are indeed being lied too, however the lie is not that “they will get to keep their coverage.” The lie is that we could afford to cover everyone over 65 years old in the first place.