An Autopsy of a Failed Govt Health Care System

What you're left with at the end of government-mandated health care

The Heartland Institute examines a recent article by Dr. Paul Hsieh, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Medicine on the debacle the Massachusetts experiment in forced health care coverage has become. 

Hsieh describes how Mass. instituted this utopian wonder:

The state would establish a quasi-governmental authority known as the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector (or “Connector”) to serve as a clearinghouse through which individuals would be able to purchase state-approved insurance plans. Every resident would be required to purchase a health insurance plan, either from a private insurer or though the Connector, with stiff financial penalties for those who failed to comply. Residents who could not afford insurance would have their expenses subsidized by the state in part or in full, depending on their income. Employers with more than ten employees would be required to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a special fee to subsidize coverage for low-income individuals. 

While not rising to the level of the fully centralized versions of health care seen in Canada and Great Britain, this constitutes government-run health care by any reasonable estimation.

So how has it turned out?  Well, it didn’t lower costs and it didn’t achieve universal coverage.  

Even someone only moderately familiar with market forces and human nature could have told the socialists in Mass. this…but then, socialists always choose idealism over reality.

Why did costs go up?

Costs have risen for individuals because, under this plan, as under any mandatory insurance scheme, the government must define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy. As a result, special interest groups have been given both the incentive and the means to lobby politicians to include their pet benefits as part of the government-approved plan. Consequently, the state government requires all patients to purchase “benefits” that are useless to many of them—benefits they would never voluntarily choose to purchase in a free market. For example, Massachusetts currently requires insurance plans to include forty-three mandatory benefits, including in vitro fertilization, blood lead poisoning treatment, and chiropractor services—whether or not customers want them. Residents must purchase alcoholism therapy benefits, even if they are teetotalers. These mandated benefits have raised the costs of health insurance in Massachusetts by 23 to 56 percent.

The taxpayers of Mass. also got a double-whammy because these increased costs also meant more taxpayer dollars going to pay for the subsidized health care payments. And subsidies covered not just the “poor,” but families with an income as high as $60,000 for a family of four.

And like every socialist scheme, this led to a domino effect of bad outcomes.

The skyrocketing taxpayer costs led to government reducing state insurance reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. The article quotes one family physician, Dr. Katherine Atkinson:

“[E]very time I have a Medicaid patient it’s like handing them a $20 bill when they leave.”

As caring and kind-hearted as many doctors are, they can’t run a practice like this. Pretty soon, they’ll be on the dole, too.

The fall of this domino led to the next two: difficulty in finding a doctor, and long waits for health care.

Fewer doctors are willing to take on new patients for fear of losing even more money. Lee Sampson, a 47-year old medical transcriptionist, had to call fifty doctors’ offices before she could find one that would take her as a new patient.21 Tamar Lewis, a 24-year old hair stylist, called more than two dozen primary care doctors for a checkup. All of them turned her down, leaving her with no choice but to rely on the community free clinic.22 Patients face long waits for basic medical care—in some cases more than a year for a routine physical exam.

So do you really have universal coverage if many people can’t find a doctor and can’t see one for a year? Well, perhaps on paper. But how helpful is having that paper in your hand while you’re waiting to see a doctor?

So did they learn from this? No. The Mass. government plans to do more of what created the problem in the first place:

Some analysts predict that the Massachusetts plan will ultimately cost the state more than three times the original estimates. The state is also considering raising taxes and requiring businesses, hospitals, and insurers to pay more to fund the program. Finally, the state plans to slash payments to doctors and hospitals an additional 3 to 5 percent, which will make it even harder for patients to find physicians willing to see them.

So what can we learn from this latest socialist failure?

• Socialist health care schemes ignores the fact that health insurance is a commodity  
• Socialist schemes violate  individual rights 
• Mandatory insurance is a thinly veiled system of welfare
• The Massachusetts plan is based on the socialist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
• This and other socialist health care plans operate on the fallacious premise that health care is a “right” that must be guaranteed by the government

Dr. Hsieh’s article is lengthy but a great read.  I encourage any American interested in freedom and sensible government to read it in its entirety.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.