Is Medicaid really that evil?

I’ve linked a very popular article by Dr. Aaron Carroll, who is one of the most insightful sources on the Internet when it comes to health care reform. I strongly encourage anyone interested in a non-partisan, fact-based analysis of the current health care environment to follow his blog The Incidental Economist.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/15/carroll.medicaid.budget/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/

The area that I really want to focus on in this article is the comments that follow it up. The reason I want to address these comments is because they provide a great example of some of the flawed logic, anecdotal perspectives, and partisan viewpoints that steer the current health care debate. Some of the major errors in this healthcare discussion include:

-An overall lack of scope and scale within the health care discussion. For example, lawsuits and tort reform are often discussed as a potential source of health care savings in the U.S. While this may be true, most estimates of malpractice tort are in the $10-30 billion dollar range. Total health care costs are in excess of $2.5 Trillion, meaning that malpractice expenses only represent 1-2% of health care expenses. This lack of scale pops of often in healthcare debates when people talk about a million wasted here, or a million wasted there. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important to eliminate waste whenever possible, but we too often get sidetracked with the little stuff in this debate instead of addressing larger issues.

-Poor statistical analysis. Sound statistical analysis involves properly collecting Data and then progressing from Data to Information, Information to Facts, and Facts to Knowledge. All too often we do not follow an all-encompassing approach to the data that we gather on health care. This leads to statistical bias, ignoring relevant information, and generating assertions based on incomplete information/data. Politicians all too often ignore studies that don’t align with their pre-existing beliefs/biases. This is just bad science that prevents us from getting to the root of the issues.

-Opinions based on anecdotal information. While we all can think of examples of people “gaming the system” or abusing government programs, it is a stretch to apply these specific examples to all users of programs like Medicaid and Medicare in general. This is why using sound statistics is so important; it creates a more impartial method for conducting analysis on this issue.

-A lost sense of history in regards to the reasons why programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and health care reform in general were originally legislated. As Dr. Carroll mentions in his article, Medicaid provides insurance for the disabled, children, pregnant women, and people in extreme poverty. A lot of people like to blame programs like Medicaid (and Planned Parenthood for that matter), for letting women off the hook when it comes to paying for their pregnancy. They believe that having these programs encourages people to abuse the system. These people fail to realize that these problems were already in existence long before Medicaid or any other program came along. These programs were originated to address specific problems and, therefore, are not the original causes of said problems. Eliminating Medicaid will not stop poor people from getting sick or the need for uninsured women to receive healthcare during their pregnancy. Any argument to the contrary ignores our history and basic human nature.