John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods (Austin based grocery store) has stirred some folks up with his recent Wall Street Journal article.
While I don’t know the ins and outs of the business/money side of things I think he could be on to something (Spamboy has a great expansion on Mackey’s ideas).
Mackey makes several main reform suggestions (including several that are already being done at Whole Foods).
- Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
- Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
- Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.
- Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
- Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
- Enact Medicare reform.
- Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Mackie then continues with this idea I’ve been chewing on for a while. It’s not the most popular idea but its one I think we should wrestle with.
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.
As Americans we get really caught up in what we claim as our rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That sounds very American. But is health care, food and shelter a right as well? Is clean water a right? Are these simply American rights or the rights of all of humanity? Do you need health care, food and shelter to live a free, happy life? Sure it makes it “easier.” But is it a right?
Granted – you should know by now that I think those of us who have been blessed should do our part to help the rest. And I think those of us who can, should do all we can to help those in need — whether it’s housing, food, shelter or health care.
And whether these things are a right or not – I don’t think that excuses us from trying to do all we can to provide care for those in need.
Mainly, I’m not convinced that our current health care issues are something the government can or should solve. Simply put, because I’m not doing more and because you’re not doing more and because Joe American isn’t doing more to help and love his neighbor — the government is taking action.
Remember that if we all truly recognized what love is – “capitalism wouldn’t be necessary and Marxism wouldn’t be possible.” (Shane Claiborne)
It still amazes me that until the mid 1950s or so, health insurance wasn’t even an issue in America. Doctors simply went to school, learned and then opened a local practice in their home town where they provided health care for anyone in need. Often times, without payment for services.
Did the doctors becoming greedy, requiring higher medical costs and thus insurance? Did the drug companies start demanding more money? Did the technological advances require it?
We can probably find ways to point our fingers in all those directions.
Or perhaps we should remember that we’re just as responsible.
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Maybe — just maybe — we could stop spending all our time pointing the flaws in Obama’s plan of action and start sitting down like John Mackey and actually make some suggestions.
As a side note – I received a few tweets about this article from a friend in Canada:
Just a note: I’ve never had to wait more than a few weeks for any seriously needed treatment. I love our system.
And for EMERGENCY treatment I’ve never had to wait at all. Straight into the operating table.
No system is perfect, that’s for sure. But the waiting issue is not a big one, at least not for anyone I know.
I disagree with the “Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.” The reasons these laws were enacted were because the insurance companies were not covering some basic medications. For instance, covering Viagra, but not birth control. Many of the issues are to ensure medical services that affect women only were covered. If we come to a common agreement on what needs to be included, I agree. But repealing the existing laws and returning the original situation is not what I would prfer.
Thanks for the comment Lisa.
I’m not familiar with the history of the state laws but it seems like a national law could/would require insurance companies to provide care across state line. The federal government should be able to put the same rules in place that the states already have.
Am I missing something there?
I disagree with the “Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.” The reasons these laws were enacted were because the insurance companies were not covering some basic medications. For instance, covering Viagra, but not birth control. Many of the issues are to ensure medical services that affect women only were covered. If we come to a common agreement on what needs to be included, I agree. But repealing the existing laws and returning the original situation is not what I would prfer.
Thanks for the comment Lisa.
I’m not familiar with the history of the state laws but it seems like a national law could/would require insurance companies to provide care across state line. The federal government should be able to put the same rules in place that the states already have.
Am I missing something there?
This is a terrific post. The case for the social media in health care is cogently argued and I especially like the suggestions made in point 5. Let us hope that the health care field jumps onto the bandwagon with sensible social media strategies that are of true benefit to health care workers, patients and the whole community.