Anti-Universal Coverage Club

You can count me in:

Here are the guiding principles of the Anti-Universal Coverage Club:

1. Health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people.
2. To achieve “universal coverage” would require either having the government provide health insurance to everyone or forcing everyone to buy it. Government provision is undesirable, because government does a poor job of improving quality or efficiency. Forcing people to get insurance would lead to a worse health-care system for everyone, because it would necessitate so much more government intervention.
3. In a free country, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
4. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage” to subsidize people via “insurance.”

If you are interested, head on over to Cato-at-Liberty and post something on your blog or e-mail Michael Cannon.

Uninsured in America : new film by Stuart Browning

Uninsured in America is a short film by Stuart Browning profiling some of the people who make up the so-called uninsured in America. You can watch the film here. I highly recommend it. A couple of excerpts from the transcript:

According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)

In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)

Hat tip to Dr.Helen.

All those uninsured better be careful what they wish for - if some politicians have their way this is what the future could look like.

Romney's government health care disaster

I haven't had time to digest all the feedback and commentary on yesterday's Republican candidates debate, but from many accounts it sounds like Mitt Romney did the best, or at least looked and sounded presidential. I think Romney is a polished politician and very professional and so far sounds like he is running a smart campaign. As an Independent I won't be participating in the primary, but if I was I would not be voting for him, nor will I vote for him for President. And one of those reasons is because I am very uncomfortable with his eager embrace of government controlled health care.

This morning Cato-at-Liberty reminds us of some of the elements of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts:

Imposes an unprecedented individual mandate, requiring everyone in Massachusetts to purchase a government-designated insurance product or face thousands of dollars in tax penalties.

Significantly increased Medicaid eligibility and provided taxpayer-funded subsidies for a family of four earning as much as $62,000 year, effectively extending welfare well into the middle class.

Creates a Hillary Clinton managed-competition-style regulatory authority called the Massachusetts Health Care Connector. This new regulatory body has already mandated that every health care policy sold in the state must cover prescription drugs and has outlawed policies with deductibles of more than $2,000.

Imposes a penalty on businesses that do not provide health insurance to their employees (although in fairness, this provision was enacted over Governor Romney’s veto.)

Greatly expands the state’s health care bureaucracy, creating at least 10 new boards, commissions, and other institutions to study and regulate health care.

The folks at Cato-at-Liberty have a lot more on Romney-care here, here, and here. There is a health care problem in this country, but universal, government sponsored or controlled health care is not the answer.

UK Doctors advise against a career in medicine

Citing "terrible" morale.

The survey, conducted by Hospital Doctor magazine and the website Medix, asked doctors if they agreed with Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, when she said 2006 had been the best year for the NHS. Nearly 90 per cent disagreed.

One doctor told the survey: "As more hospitals try to balance books by sacking staff, the remaining staff are having to pick up the slack, resulting in more mistakes being made. Morale is at an all-time low and getting worse."

Stephen Campion, the chief executive of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, was "saddened" by the results of the poll.

"Traditionally, many doctors have followed in their parents' footsteps and increasingly we are hearing doctors saying they wished they hadn't recommended a career in medicine to their children.

"This is indicative of the extreme frustration and low morale hospital doctors are feeling."

A spokesman for the British Medical Association said: "The survey shows how doctors believe constant Government reforms are taking them further away from their vocation - to treat patients."

Emphasis ours. Big hat tip to BizzyBlog.