Paul Gessing
Paul Gessing is the president of the Rio Grande Foundation, a public policy organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Prior to joining the Foundation, he headed up the lobbying efforts of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) a respected taxpayer-advocacy organization in Washington, DC. At NTU, Paul's portfolio included lobbying before Congress and in the states. He has published articles in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, US News & World Reports, and several other major publications. In them he makes the case for Constitutional protections for taxpayers, the economic benefits of tax cuts, and the need for spending restraint. Paul has also testified in Congress and before a variety of state and local bodies in support of taxpayer interests.
Paul graduated from Bowling Green State University in Ohio with a degree in Political Science in 1997 and he received his Masters in Business Administration from the University of Maryland in 2005.
Sunday, June 29, 2008More Americans Delay CareBy Paul GessingAccording to a new study from the Center for Studying Health System Change, more Americans delayed "necessary" care in 2007. According to a write up in the Wall Street Journal:
Obviously as costs increase and patients are forced to pay a greater percentage of their care, this result was inevitable. The question is, how "necessary" is necessary and is this trend necessarily a bad thing? After all, while there are certainly "cut-and-dry" cases when immediate treatment is a must, one's definition of "needed" changes dramatically based on who is paying for the care.
|
Saturday, June 28, 2008Doctors vs. Health CareBy Paul GessingCategories: IllinoisThe Chicago Tribune has an excellent editorial in today's paper about efforts by the Illinois State Medical Society to eliminate competition in the form of clinics which are staffed by by nurse practitioners. The legislation which is now introduced in the Legislature would: • Ban health-care facilities from opening in any store that also sells alcohol or tobacco. Well, there go Wal-Mart, Walgreens and CVS/Caremark as locations for the clinics. • Require separate restrooms and a "designated receptionist and waiting area." Both would raise the infrastructure costs of many retail clinics to the point that they would no longer make economic sense. • Ban advertising of fee comparisons and require that no doctor can supervise more than two clinics. Preserving monopolies through the government is a nasty thing and these efforts, if successful, will only force patients to pay more for care.
|
Saturday, June 21, 2008I'm with Ricki LakeBy Paul GessingWhile health care policy is undoubtedly gripping enough by itself, one thing this blog is missing is a little celebrity controversy. Luckily, talk show host Ricki Lake has recently become embroiled in a debate with the American Medical Association over home birth that is worth keeping an eye on. Lake and filmmaker Abby Epstein produced a documentary (released in January) called The Business of Being Born, which takes aim at doctors for treating every birth like a "potentially catastrophic medical emergency." The film included footage of Lake giving birth to her second son in the bathtub of her Manhattan apartment. Certainly, it would seem that Lake (and other women) would have the right to give birth as they see fit, but that is not the case, according to the busybodies at the American Medical Association. Last weekend, the Association issued a resolution against home births at its delegates meeting and explicitly criticized Lake. Worse, the organization would like all midwives to go through the training and certification process defined by the American College of Nurse-Midwives and is planning to lobby states to adopt legislation to this effect. Clearly, the AMA is attempting to determine how women give birth. Doctors also benefit financially from intensive use of medical services throughout the child birth process. As a proponent of health care freedom (and reducing superfluous costs) my only response to this is: "Go Ricki, Go Ricki..."
|
Sunday, June 15, 2008No Free Drug Samples?New Mexico hospital kicks pharmaceutical reps out By Paul GessingCategories: New Mexico, PharmaceuticalsAccording to a story in this week's Albuquerque Alibi, UNM's Health Sciences Center, which includes UNM Hospital and the medical school, has adopted new restrictions to eliminate drug advertising in the university's medical buildings. While those who see drug companies as evil subversives working to snooker doctors and their patients into purchasing their latest and greatest drug, it would seem that this is yet another effort by a university to stifle free speech. After all, who is going to tell doctors what new drugs and treatment possibilities are out there? Are they supposed to hunt these treatments down on the Internet? How about patients? Are drug companies' advertisements (also under attack by those who dislike the pharmaceuticals industry) now the only way they can find out about new treatments? The fact is that if we had a health care system that functioned more like a market with consumers able to price various options (using a consumer-directed mechanism like an HSA) rather than being shielded from them by health insurance or government programs, the so-called "problem" with drug advertising would largely disappear. After all, if it is patients who decide whether to use a generic drug or the latest name brand drug, they should be able to use it since they are paying for it. In fact, opponents of drug advertising justify their position due to the higher cost associated with name-brand drugs.
|
Tuesday, June 10, 2008Stephen Colbert and George Will Discuss Health Care MandatesBy Paul GessingCategories: Individual Mandates, New MexicoAs I've mentioned before on this blog, health care mandates are a big problem with increasing health care costs. Rarely is this issue discussed in the media, but George Will recently brought up the point with Stephen Colbert on health care and mandates (click here and fast-forward two-thirds of the way through). According to data compiled by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, New Mexico has the 9th-highest mandate total (51) in the nation. Obviously, forcing people to buy a "premium" health insurance product if they are to buy any insurance at all is a big factor in giving the state the 2nd-highest-in-the-nation uninsured rate.
|
Sunday, June 8, 2008"Universal" Health Care Proponent Bemoans Political Difficulty of Achieving GoalBy Paul GessingMichael L. Millenson, a health care consultant and the author of "Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age," writing in today's Washington Post, discusses the fault lines among left-leaning special-interests that he believes have prevented the nation from embarking on a "universal" health care scheme. While bemoaning these divergent interests and arguing for unity on behalf of policies that express "our willingness to be our brothers' keepers," an impulse that Millenson argues "defines who we are as Americans," he also provides a useful reminder that advocates for more government involvement in health care are by no means unified. In fact, those who believe that individuals can make better health care decisions than can government bureaucrats, should attempt to exploit these differences whenever possible. Certainly, Millenson is correct that with elderly already receiving a disproportionate share of government medical spending, the last thing our nation needed was a prescription drug entitlement. So, while it may be tough sledding for free market reformers at the federal level, at least we can take comfort in the fact that the "other side" is not united either. If market reforms are to succeed, they will occur at the state level as we saw in Georgia recently.
|
Friday, June 6, 2008A leftist response to Georgia health care articleBy Paul GessingCategories: Georgia, New MexicoI wrote an article recently in the Albuquerque Journal about some important health care reforms taking place in Georgia. I love it when people respond to articles written by the Foundation because it shows we are having an impact and making people think. Unfortunately, the response to my article came from Dan Davis of Los Lunas, a regular, left-wing letter-writer to the Journal. His response focuses on two points: 1) Georgia's law was passed by a Republican Legislature and signed by a Republican Governor 2) The American Cancer Society worries that high-deductible health plans make preventative treatment cost-prohibitive. My response to Davis is two-fold: whether the law was passed by Republicans or Democrats is irrelevant. Political leaders of all stripes must be concerned with the state of American health care. Moving to a system under which costs are directly related to benefits is the only proven way to improve quality and cut costs simultaneously. Regarding the concerns expressed by the Cancer Society, consumer-driven health care plans have been on the cutting edge of efforts to improve patient quality. After all, it is much easier to convince the average person of the importance of their own health if you can attach dollar signs to healthier lifestyles. Davis is a hard-core lefty and I don't expect to convince him, but hopefully other readers cut through his rhetoric.
|
Wednesday, June 4, 2008Native American Health: Socialized Medicine Gone BadBy Paul GessingCategories: Single-Payer FolliesThis article appeared recently (May 28) in the Albuquerque Journal. The author's basic point is that Native Americans were promised health care paid for by the federal government and that the government has fallen short of its obligations. Of course, more money is essential (in the author's mind) to rectify this injustice. This promise of a "right" to health care is strikingly similar to politicians' promise to "universal" health care and other plans to dramatically alter America's health care system. While more money may indeed be necessary to "fully" fund the Indian Health Care system, history has shown that government-run health services are very expensive and thus, by their nature, are ultimately "underfunded." While the Indians undoubtedly had little choice in the wording of the "treaties" they signed with the US Government, their costly and ultimately sad experience with "free" health care should give so-called progressives pause when promoting the idea as a panacea for current problems.
|
Thursday, May 29, 2008Rio Grande Foundation urges New Mexico Politicians to Follow Georgia's Lead on Health CareBy Paul GessingCategories: Georgia, New MexicoA few weeks ago, I blogged about the reforms Georgia has recently made to health care policies within its borders. Today, I wrote about these changes and urged New Mexico policymakers to follow suit, in the Albuquerque Journal. Check out the article here
|
Wednesday, May 28, 2008A Free Market in Health Care?By Paul GessingArguably, the most important single way to promote individual freedom in any economy is through the mechanism of free trade. After all, while government bureaucrats love to manage and play favorites in the economy, their ability to do so is limited dramatically if actors in that economy can choose to leave when regulations become too onerous. That is the basic premise of the Health Care Choice Act which would allow Americans to purchase individual health insurance policies across state lines. In today's Wall Street Journal, Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor at Columbia University and Sandip Madan, the CEO of Global Healthnet discuss the importance of free trade in health care and four "modes" in which a free trade climate can be viewed. The modes are as follows: Mode 1 refers to "arm's length" services that are typically found online: The provider and the user of services do not have to be in physical proximity. Mode 2 relates to patients going to doctors elsewhere. Mode 3 refers mainly to creating and staffing hospitals in other countries. Mode 4 encompasses doctors and other medical personnel going to where the patients are. All modes promise varying, and substantial, cost savings. Free trade in health care seems to be improving whereas overall freedom in health care seems to be regressing. Hopefully trade can grow and act again on a check against government meddling.
|
| Total: 96 | [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » |
| SPN Headquarters: 2020 North 14th Street Ste 250 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 243-1655 | West Coast Office: PO Box 5208 Richmond, CA 94805 Phone: (510) 965-9700 |
