Polis implies he’d represent the worst in us

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Brian Schwartz

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

An ambulance pulls up to a hospital with an uninsured person in need of emergency treatment. Would you donate to a charity that provides medical care in this situation? Would you give because it’s right, or because the authorities will punish you if you don’t? If you give just to avoid punishment, and live in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, vote for Jared Polis this November — as he represents you.

Polis pretty much said so himself in a recent Rocky Mountain News Speakout. While arguing for “universal health care,” where politicians meddle in choices best left between doctors and patients, Polis writes: “First, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we have anything close to a ‘free market’ in health care. A free market would allow the uninsured to die on the hospital doorstep rather than provide them treatment they cannot pay for.”

At least Polis recognizes that state and federal laws interfere with a free market. Here he refers to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act ("EMTALA"), which forbids hospital emergency departments from denying care to anyone with an emergency medical condition. Jared Polis thinks that without such a law, such denials would happen routinely, and the uninsured would “die on the hospital doorstep.”

According to Polis, a law must compel doctors to treat the uninsured in emergency situations. Is he suggesting that doctors are so heartless and cruel that they would never treat someone for free? Are voters too callous to fund charities committed to funding treatment for the uninsured in emergency situations?

This is unlikely. Consider the Shriners Hospitals for Children. Their 2005 donations exceeded $640 million. Or the Bonfils Blood Center, which has been operating in Colorado since 1943. It reports that “nearly 120,000 blood donors made life-saving donations in 2007.” Last year Colorado’s “208” Commission on Healthcare reform reported that private philanthropy accounted for almost $200 million in medical care for the uninsured.

Polis writes that we have “made a moral decision not to allow people in our great country to die in this fashion.” Not quite. Moral decisions are a matter of choice, not a threat. EMTALA threatens doctors with penalties up to $50,000 for not complying. Hence, EMTALA is effectively a charity funded by the threat of punishment.

So Jared Polis thinks that government must force Colorado citizens and physicians to do the right thing, as we wouldn’t do so in a free market. Yet, Jared Polis seeks public office, to represent us, the very people he doesn¢t trust to act morally. If Polis really represents us, then why should we trust him to be ethical? Here lies the fallacy behind the common rationale behind tax-funded charities: “We must use taxes and other penalties to force people to fund these charities because they will not do it on their own.” If there aren’t enough people who would sufficiently fund the charity by choice, why expect that there would be enough people to elect representatives that would pass laws compelling people to fund that charity?

In any case, government-funded charities are unfair, intolerant, and ineffective.

They are unfair because, just as governments shouldn’t subsidize politically-connected businesses, they shouldn’t favor certain non-profits, either.

They show intolerance by forcing all taxpayers to fund someone else’s idea of a worthy cause, which leaves them less able to support organizations they themselves judge to be worthwhile.

They are ineffective because, unlike voluntary charities, they are not accountable to their donors, and hence need not demonstrate results to continue receiving money. In fact, the opposite is true. When government charities such as government schools, Medicare, and Medicaid perform poorly, the politically popular solution is to increase their funding, and the opposition is branded as heartless.

Free-market charities are fair, tolerant and effective. Politicians should protect them. But if you prefer politicians who impose their notions of morality on others, vote for Jared Polis.

Brian Schwartz is a resident of Boulder.

• February 26, 2008

  10:11 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  I suffer from diabetes, kidney failure, an extremely bad heart and, the day I went on dialysis, I became eligible for automatic Medicare. Since I have private insurance, and have already paid the maximum amount of co-pays for hospitalization and other things.
  Problem is that every time I convey a doctor's order to my dialysis center their first action is to see if such an order is covered by Medicare. If not they will tell me they can't do it. When I respond that I have private insurance, they stare at me like I am crazy to pay for insurance that I could get for free. I have to turn down suggestions every week that I convert my expensive health insurance into a Medicare, medigap policy. My husband would pay the same whether or not I changed the plan and I like being able to call both billing centers (papers I signed agreeing to dialysis also permitted them to submit my name for Medicare coverage) and I suggest that each pay half. They both claim that is impossible and I don't know which side wins but I DO know the second time I receive a bill I attach a statement of intent to send a copy of my health record, the bill and copies of the Medicare policy and my insurance policy to the insurance commission. I had private insurance for a year before I got put on Medicare.
  Point of all this is that the first instinct of any health care provider is to go after the government money. I am a rebel because I don't only oppose socialized medicine with my mouth. I put my butt (and kidneys) on the line.
  There is no need to add layers of government to health care. The old insurance system paid for major illness or injury. Normal health care issues, like broken bones, flu and sprains were paid for by the individual. Doctors didn't advertise, it was forbidden, but pharmacies did Many were able to shop for the cheapest drugs. Doctors didn't need twice as many people for paperwork as for medicine, their expenses were smaller. People paid up front or made their own arrangements

  Continued on next post.

• February 26, 2008

  10:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  p_myers661 writes:

  The cost of government, and insurance company, paperwork is the single largest drain on medical care. Some time, soon I hope, the average individual will be able to deduct the cost of insurance payments from taxes. Working poor will get medical credits much like the Earned Income credit to help them buy insurance or fund a Medical Savings Account. Many times people, the young workers, either take a chance by not buying insurance or pay thousands and thousands of dollars into the program and get little back. MSAs would let them buy a policy for major illnesses or accidents and put aside money for everyday medical expenses. Clinics are popping up that charge 65 dollars for a visit and take payment on the spot. Medications are also available at a discount from many pharmacies.
  We should offer Medicaid recipients a card, like the food stamp card, to pay for regular medical expenses. It would be a MSA and they would be responsible for finding health care just like they are responsible for finding housing, food and jobs. You can negotiate lower prices with many doctors and pharmacies for cash payments. If the low income person uses a neighborhood clinic, the charge would be either one dollar or nothing. Medicare recipients should be allowed to choose between a MSA and the present system and also allowed to switch back anytime in the first three years.

  This change would encourage insurance companies to offer plans tailored to the needs of individuals instead of corporations. Doctors, and hospitals, could reduce costs because they would have smaller paperwork burdens and more ready cash.

  Whole Foods exchanged its old insurance for MSAs. Go online and see how the workers adapted and what they think about it. There was a PBS program, or a Discovery Channel one, on it last year.

  Politicians have restricted the ability of insurance companies to offer MSAs because many insurance companies fear the loss of income they represent. They also offer a loss of power since individuals can make the same deals with hospitals and doctors that the insurance companies do. Look at your hospital bill sometime.

  Power to the people, not the bean counters or the government.

• February 27, 2008

  8:45 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  pmeyers, I admire you for walking the talk. You rock!

• February 27, 2008

  11:12 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  paulhsiehmd writes:

  Brian Schwartz is completely right. In fact, we see that it is the so-called "compassionate" systems like the British socialized National Health Service that are willing to allow people to die by denying them vital care. One example was cited in the recent New York Times article, "Paying Patients Test British Health Care System":

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wor...

  Government-run "single-payer" systems such as the one that Polis advocates are bad for patients and doctors alike. Whenever the government pays for everyone's health care, it will inevitably demand to control how that money is spent. Hence, crucial medical decisions will be made by politicians and bureaucrats, rather than patients and doctors. Rather than a "right", health care then becomes a *privilege* dispensed at the discretion of the government.

  That is why the UK, Canada, Sweden, and every other country that has attempted to impose government-run "universal health care" ends up with a draconian system of medical rationing.

  America must not adopt this failed approach. Only a free market in health care can provide Americans with the quality, affordable care we need and deserve.

  For more information about free market medicine, please visit Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, at www.WeStandFIRM.org.

  Paul Hsieh, MD
  Sedalia, CO

• March 4, 2008

  8:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  Dr. Hsieh, you rock! Thanks for your comments!

  I read the NYT story. That poor woman, forced to choose between a lifesaving chemo drug and her entire medical care cost. Americans wouldn't stand for such inhuman "medical care." I don't know why so many Americans are demanding it!