My Plan for Healthcare
The issue of healthcare has been subject to much heated debate over the last year in America. Democrats and Republicans alike have been arguing about the role of government in healthcare and the path to resolving the problems we as a nation are facing with our health system. Though there are many details and nuances that are being discussed within the scope of the debate, the central issue is the role government should play in healthcare policy: healthcare reform or healthcare takeover?
I believe healthcare costs can be significantly reduced without taking over the healthcare system as set forth by Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Wilson and Barack Obama. I also believe healthcare costs can be controlled without levying any further taxes on our citizens. While the current healthcare plan being proposed requires an immediate increase in taxes and will cost over a trillion dollars over ten years, I believe we can accomplish significant healthcare reform without taking a cent out of the pockets of Americans.
There are three major issues in healthcare reform that need to be addressed that have been avoided under the current healthcare plan and continue to be ignored under the bill signed into law: tort reform, loser pays, and portability.
Tort Reform
Tort Reform has been an issue of contention in the scope of healthcare reform over the past year, but it is fundamental to reducing healthcare costs. The combination of defensive medical spending by physicians and frivolous malpractice claims is contributing to rising healthcare costs in America and it needs to be limited. While Congress has made every effort to avoid including this reform, I believe meaningful healthcare reform has to include this.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over $54 billion will be saved over ten years if Tort Reform is implemented as a part of healthcare reform. Included in such reform would be a cap on non-economic and punitive damages, as well as limiting the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits.
Ohio has adopted a similar plan, as has California and Texas. Though there are some differences between the plans, the similarities include the caps on damages and limitations on the statute of limitations. Malpractice premiums have been going down in each of these states, saving the healthcare system in each respective state billions of dollars each year.
Loser Pays
Adoption of the Loser Pays rules could significantly reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Commonly known as the "English Rule", the premise behind this rule is that the loser of a lawsuit would have to pay all of the attorney fees and court costs of the winning party. Most countries currently operate under this system. The state of Alaska operates under this system of justice presently.
Loser Pays is a means to weed out frivolous lawsuits in the court system, and it would not only contribute to limiting rising healthcare costs but would also extend to the entire court system. It would help to ensure that plaintiffs with a legitimate case can bring suit, but also would deter plaintiffs from bringing a meritless case forward. As a result, costs related to healthcare litigation that may be warrantless should substantially decrease over time.
Portability
Americans should have access to healthcare insurance plans of their choosing, and should not be limited to the state in which they reside. There should not be a restriction on someone in Ohio from purchasing a healthcare plan from Kentucky or Texas. Americans should freely be able to choose which plan is right for them based on cost and quality as well as location.
Some states have placed numerous mandates on health insurance plans and as a result these plans may not be affordable to someone looking for coverage. Portability of health insurance plans would help fix this problem.
Allowing insurance to be nationally competitive rather than limited to state boundaries would reduce costs of plans through competition and would slowly move each state towards a more standard and rational regulation of insurance plans. While some level of oversight would be required at the Federal level, the system would primarily be regulated at the state level.
