|
Common Sense Solutions to American Problems
Health care and education are two issues figuring prominently in the election of 2008. Both call out for badly needed change. And both are managed by a government which is rarely admired for its efficient operation. UPS and Fed Express would not exist if our U. S. Post Office had been managed otherwise. Our free enterprise system not our government has produced Health Care Government mandated free health care to everyone ignores one long standing principle of supply and demand: if something is free there will be an unlimited demand for it. When such is the case the supply can never immediately meet that demand. Fulfilling that demand will be delayed in the least if it can be met at all. One need look no further than Canada or Great Brittan to see the result of people near death being required to wait longer in line to see a doctor than the time they have to live. Free universal health care is no solution. Free has no value if you never receive the product or receive it too late. Plus the cost of operating such a program would be horrendous. Universal health care does not allow millions of consumers to make disciplined purchasing choices based on price, and it allows producers to care only about developing a lobbying relationship with the government purchaser-not to care how much the product will cost to produce. Consequently the final cost of all health care will always be unnecessarily high. What is the solution then to the problem of the 47,000,000 uninsured who cannot obtain health care? Vern Wuensche believes that a progressive movement employing the principles of free enterprise in delivering health care to Americans can solve the problem. This would involve consumers carefully choosing doctors, hospitals, medicines and other preventive health care alternatives at prices they believe they can individually afford. Clear, easily understandable, comparative information with pricing on all of the alternatives would be provided to consumers so as to allow them to choose intelligently among them. The same process they engage when they choose apples at the grocery store. And it would involve producers in every state in the There would obviously be a necessary period of transition. Because the government is today so heavily involved in health care steps must be taken so as to be able to move progressively to a free enterprise model: Allow private individuals a $15,000.00 deduction so as to place them on the same basis as those who are employed by a corporation and who receive their health insurance from them. Create liberalized Health Savings Accounts where consumers are able to choose: insurance with a high or low deductible to cover expenses; spending on preventive health care; fewer visits to the doctor; buying generic drugs, etc. Each could be tailored to each consumer's needs. All savings would be their own. It is remarkable in this country that the government trusts a twelve person jury to decide the fate of an individual in a capital murder case, but does not trust millions of persons to make their own medical decisions. Allow drug companies to reduce the time of bringing drugs to market by allowing them to disclose risks associated with using their drugs at any point in time. Have a public debate on the point in time it should be allowed to be purchased by the consumer and at what cost. Allow terminal patients the right to use experimental drugs where there is still some risk to their usage. Allow consumers the right to sign “hold harmless” agreements with insurance companies giving up their right to sue in exchange for a lower insurance premium. This is effectively done with credit card companies to reduce their costs. Require insurance companies in each state to compete nationwide. Since there are some individuals who cannot afford certain expensive treatments or drugs, the public through debate should determine what that maximum amount should be, and then that individual should be able to apply for a government subsidy. The government bears a large amount of the responsibility for the rapidly increasing cost of health care so it must also bear a responsibility for taking care of some of its citizens cost during the transition to a lower cost free market system. This system created would help those who cannot with their own normal resources help themselves. A competitive bid basis would be required of those who provide health care for these individuals in order that cost might be kept down while still preventing any delay in care or any reduction in the quality of care. Education Year after year our public school system turns out a lower and lower quality graduate. Those who can afford otherwise place their children in private schools or purchase homes in areas that are often expensive so as to be in a good school district. Those with low incomes are often trapped in low performing schools. These pupils suffer as the teachers unions resist any change or competition in the schools they represent. In recent years charter schools have been authorized by state legislatures, giving these schools more control over their teaching. The results have been better. But even they have been fought by the teachers unions. School choice is the better alternative. No less than Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winning economist, has stated that a state’s school tax revenue should be divided by the number of school age students and each should be given a voucher for that amount to be spent for education wherever they wished. Opponents indicate that this would simply be a subsidy of those higher income individuals who are now opting to send their children to private schools. In actual fact those higher income individuals are being penalized in paying high school property taxes and yet not receiving the service of public education. It is also assumed by opponents that if there were school choice primarily private schools would benefit at the expense of public schools. But this is only a very small part of the story. What would happen is that educational entrepreneurs—some of them being teachers—would seek out highly qualified and experienced teachers, pay them $80,000 to $150,000 per year, and allow them the freedom to teach in the way they know they could be effective. They would set up schools to meet the needs of those parents who desired their children to focus their talents on a particular specialty such as math, English or art. The demand of the market would be met and these entrepreneurs would no doubt become more efficient and proficient in using technology to educate the students. Technology has made astounding progress in every other facet of American life why not education? Opponents also argue that only those parents who cared about their children would engage in school choice. However, this is unlikely. Since money is to be made entrepreneurs would likely seek out anyone with a voucher and possibly even bus them to their school or go to their home to teach them. The possibilities are limitless. Since privately run schools often educate a student for often $3,000 to $4,000 per year whereas public schools educate for $8,000 to $11,000 school choice should be easily profitable to entrepreneurs or private schools plus allowing for a saving to taxpayers. As with any new idea, the best business approach would be to randomly choose a large geographical area in each state, implement it for a year, make adjustments and then extend it to the entire state. Each state's duty would be to design and implement random testing of all schools to measure progress of the student, not absolute skill. Penalties could be assessed and rewards could be given to those businesses according to their performance the same as any other business is rewarded by the marketplace for its products. Government Reform Any citizen who uses government services is soon struck by how less efficient the government delivers the service compared with the delivery of most services by private enterprise. The difference is one of worker discipline. Because of Civil Service laws it is impossible to terminate a government worker whereas in private industry-particularly among smaller businesses—it is done immediately. Vern Wuensche believes legislation should be enacted which will allow the President to replace or terminate ten percent of all government Civil service employees who are not employed by the military branch of government or who are not government security workers. The legislation would place at least some accountability in the office of the President for the performance of government workers. It would have the further effect of placing all government workers in the same position as their counterparts in private industry whose jobs are always at risk and who consequently are usually quite motivated. The efficiencies which would be achieved would save taxpayer money and consequently make possible salary increases for those remaining.
|
|
 | |
Copyrighted © 2007 Vern Wuensche