During his speech yesterday evening, the President made the argument early that allowing individuals greater freedom to buy their own insurance is as extreme of a position as wanting the government to take over with single payer. This is designed to make us feel that if we believe in the free market then we are being as unreasonable as those that want to tear the entire system down. These are not equivalent positions and it’s intellectually dishonest to say so. One approach moves the government further out of the way, perhaps allowing portability of coverage across states, tort reform, and aspects of the current system that artificially raise rates (things you could argue the government put in place that caused part of the current problem). The other approach has the government taking over the healthcare industry, rationing care, and making decisions for us – the ultimate nanny state.

Moving on to dispel those horrible “myths” about his plan, the President then said nothing in the bill requires your coverage to change. The language is important here, he uses the word “requires”. Previously he said you’d “absolutely” be able to keep your coverage if you’re happy with it. The change is significant as many people realized he wasn’t being truthful. Using the word “require” may be technically true but this is, again, being intellectually dishonest. If the government puts an alternative in place that is lower cost to employers, the employees will have no choice when they’re moved to the government plan. Is this a requirement? No. Is it something that an honest, reasonable person can see is a probably outcome of the bill? Yes.

On the topic of “improving” the coverage we already have, the President said that insurance companies won’t be allowed to place ‘arbitrary’ limits on what they’ll pay and they will be limited in what they can charge for that insurance. Let that one sink in - it is something that only big government can dream up. Sure it sounds wonderful and utopian but what is that really practical? Unlimited expenses and limited income for all private insurance companies means there won’t be any left in business under the President’s plan. Good thing we’re not “required” to take the government plan.

It's in this context we should consider the President’s stated desire to keep the long term goal of his healthcare reform in mind. Talks of short term compromise should throw up red flags. He won’t “require” you to switch into the government plan but he wants to mandate everyone buys insurance and put private insurance out of business. Just what is the long term goal then? Everything points back to single payer.

Last week President Obama visited the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio to observe and learn about the high quality and cost-effective care they are delivering there.  One aspect of that visit Obama highlighted in the town hall meeting that followed was Cleveland Clinic’s effective use of information technology systems.  To quote the President:

“Cleveland Clinic has one of the best health information technology systems in the country.  And that means they can track patients and their progress.  It means they can see what treatments work and what treatments are unnecessary.  It means they can provide better care for patients.  They don’t have to duplicate test after test because it’s all online.  They can help patients manage chronic diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure and asthma and emphysema by coordinating with doctors and nurses both in the hospital and in the community.”

Wow, it sure sounds like the Cleveland Clinic has a good thing going – a good thing that doesn’t include the government taking over our healthcare.  Clearly, health care information technology alone won’t solve every problem we might have with our healthcare system but the President openly and plainly stated:

“And here’s the remarkable thing: They actually have some of the lowest costs for the best care.” 

If out of control healthcare costs are a major reason for the legislation before Congress now and Cleveland Clinic is solving this through the use of technology developed privately, then why pass legislation to break this?  How can introducing additional hurdles, regulation, and government intervention help make this any better?  I think the problem for the President here is that this one example of how we can improve our healthcare system without a massive government intrusion in our lives.

The bottom line is that government regulation won’t make healthcare organizations like Cleveland Clinic work more efficiently.  Conversely, government regulation has high probability of breaking something that is, in the President’s own words, already “remarkable”.   Cleveland Clinic is a great example of an organization providing exceptional healthcare and controlling costs using existing healthcare information technology created by the private sector.  We should learn from that success.  On a local note, we can also take pride in the fact that one of the companies providing information technology to Cleveland Clinic is Epic Systems Corporation headquartered right here in Verona, in the heart of District 79.