For the record, I am not (nor have I ever defended) defending the status quo.
I dislike the health care status quo for two reasons broad reasons:
- It is inefficient and costly.
- It gives impetus to the useful idiots clamoring for universal health care.
I am for a reform of health care that would at least do the following:
- correctly align incentives
- eliminate the tax incentive in favor of employer provided health care thereby freeing labor movement AND allow wages to rise
- reduce regulation allowing for greater instate and intrastate insurance competition
- expand Health Savings Accounts and use of "catastrophic" health insurance
- encourage greater use of statistics-based health care evaluation & best practices
- I'm sure there's something I'm missing ...
I further propose that we avoid a federal, one-size-fits-all prescription for health and instead eliminate government-caused, market distorting interventions such as tax free employer provided health care. Wherever possible, the federal government should encourage and allow various states to attempt reform at that level--in the mode of Wisconsin's welfare reform in the early-mid 90's.
As an example & case study, I offer Bobby Jindal's plan to reform Medicaid in Louisiana.
This is the type of reform we should be encouraging.
If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.