Op-Ed Criticizes National Health Board
The establishment of a National Health Board to address the "inefficient health system" in the U.S. would require "putting all our health care eggs in one basket and hoping that board members make treatment and coverage decisions that are right for every American," Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic policy issues at the Heritage Foundation, writes in a Washington Times column. According to Butler, supporters maintain that a National Health Board would function as an independent body and establish an affordable standardized health plan for all residents.
However, for millions of residents, a National Health Board "would mean that a distant, unelected board -- not their doctor or themselves -- would ultimately determine what health care they could receive," he writes, adding, "The board's very independence from the people and their representatives -- touted as its key benefit -- is what is actually so alarming" because the decisions of the board "would be final" for those who could not afford to purchase additional health insurance or services. In addition, Butler writes, "Giving the board enormous powers and supposed independence won't depoliticize its membership and work," as "every NHB nomination would produce a political firestorm similar to those triggered by a nomination to the Supreme Court."
The "critical decisions over people's health should be free of interest group pressure," but a "board that is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress, and thus beyond the reach of ordinary Americans, is not the right answer," he writes. Butler concludes that a "far better approach is to move critical health decision making from Congress and give it to families and individuals themselves" (Butler, Washington Times, 9/18).
