Peter Morici: Trump must have health-care solutions to win again |
Featured Commentary

Peter Morici: Trump must have health-care solutions to win again

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a forum June 21 in Miami.

President Trump’s continued focus on immigration may play well to his base, but to win the swing voters and cobble together a majority of electoral votes, he must address our broken health care system — it ranks first among issues with voters.

Affordability is key — Americans pay 75% more for health care through taxes, premiums and out of pocket than do Canadians and Europeans, and often encounter a morass to access services.

Local cartels are common among hospitals, insurers and physician-specialist groups. Pharmaceutical companies block competing new drugs and rig prices for generics. And prices for hospitals, drugs and other services are opaque and vary arbitrarily among purchasers. Filling prescriptions and scheduling procedures can require hours of hassle for patients and physicians with benefits managers and insurers.

Sen. Bernie Sanders promises to sweep that all away with a single-payer system, but that would require about $3 trillion in new taxes annually.

His proposal is slim on how he would persuade doctors to accept Medicare reimbursements, which would hardly be enough to keep them in business. Or how he would stop drug companies from soaking Americans to enable discount prices in Europe and Canada. However, the promise of free stuff is a proven winner for Democrats.

Conservative warnings about single-payer systems have data problems, too.

Canadians and Europeans run two types of systems — most relevant for Americans are the Canadian, British, German and Netherlands systems that provide universal coverage. The former two have single-payer frameworks, whereas the latter have more comprehensive variants of Obamacare with mandatory enrollment in private or nonprofit insurance that feature less bureaucracy, price controls with teeth and insurers that follow national health care policies rather than rationing without much democratic accountability.

Conservatives are fond to tell tales of inadequate access and poor quality north of the 49th parallel and imposed on our British cousins. According to data published by the Fraser Institute, when it comes to prompt access to specialists or elective surgery, Germany is best, Canada worst, and the Netherlands and U.K. about on par between them.

On quality of care, on 11 measures such as in-patient hospital mortality and obstetric trauma with vaginal delivery, the Netherlands is best followed by Canada, then Germany and the U.K. finishing last. Germany and the U.K. are not the places to get cancer—they have the lowest overall five-year survival for breast, cervical, colon and rectal malignancies.

The bottom line is neither a single-payer nor an insurance-based approach, which offer consumers many choices, appears superior. All four systems are much less expensive to run than the U.S. system, because national governments set prices and establish frameworks for rationing. In the bargain, patients and doctors suffer much less bureaucracy.

As Americans are so divided — especially between red and blue states — and no single approach appears superior, give the states what the federal government now spends — not just federal allotments for Medicaid. Let them set up Berniecare or reform the present system to their tastes.

However, the federal government — read the Trump administration — must take the leadership to curb Big Pharma, benefit managers and insurance company anticompetitive practices in national markets. And empower — and require as a condition for access to federal funds — state attorneys general to crack down on regional hospital and physician cartels.

Without those, eventually frustrated voters will deliver to socialists control of the White House and a working majority in Congress, who will impose a single-payer system.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.