There's a health care debate raging, and it is pretty hard to pick sides. On the one hand, you have an expansion of government, which I'm pretty much against at every turn, and on the other hand, you have the opposition, as it were, whose proposal is "everything's just great". Which it clearly isn't.
So, here's a tough proposition. How about taking away the preferential tax treatment companies receive for offering medical benefits? While it would need to be implemented over time, unless you wanted to throw everything into complete disarray, it would, if done in concert with the opening up of all insurance avenues to competition, allow the public to purchase what they wanted/needed, and not what was foisted on them via some PPO, HMO or what have you. Perhaps all you want is catostrophic coverage? Surely that would be much lower in cost than insurance designed to pay for every doctor's office visit?
Some will point out that this idea still doesn't insure everyone. And they're right. It doesn't. We don't have a RIGHT to health care. Get over it.
People buying "just catastrophic coverage" would be catastrophic. People need to have good health insurance throughout their lives, from childhood until death, with regular exams happening at least annually to determine if their health is in decline and to ward off pain and suffering later in life.
ReplyDeleteWe need to get past looking at this as a financial issue and instead look at it as an issue of decency toward our common man. We all should have a right to health care.
Tom, it's very noble of you that you don't want to consider it a financial issue, but that doesn't change the simple truth that it IS a financial issue. At this point, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, delivering the 37th best health care, at least according to the WHO. Doesn't that seem just a little wrong? Shouldn't we be trying to bring those two numbers a little more in line?
ReplyDeleteBefore we go institutionalizing costs by having the government run it, don't you think it would be a better idea to get those costs down? And I can think of no better way to do it, than to force insurance companies across the board to compete for the dollars they seek.
You say it would be catastrophic for someone to buy coverage solely for major illness/accidents. Why? If a healthy 25 year old, who goes and sees his doctor once a year, feels that paying for one doctor's office visit out of pocket is a better deal for him, than paying premiums to cover visits he doesn't feel he makes, or is likely to make, why should he have to pay it? Why not just have insurance in place in the event that he contract some slick exotic disease that requires hospitalization?
A big problem in a democracy is, once people figure out they can vote themselves benefits and entitlements, they're quite liable to vote themselves bankrupt.
There is no right to health care. I agree it should be available, and I do agree that it should be cheaper. That doesn't mean we need greater direct government involvement.
The 25-year-old never knows when something catastrophic will face him. It's like rolling the dice and it's not a good idea. More so, without insurance, most 25-year-olds will probably not go get physicals every year, and instead not see a doctor until they all of a sudden are exhibiting symptoms of a much bigger problem that could have been seen coming on and dealt with to prevent the bigger problems. High blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, abnormal heart problems or blood levels -- you name it.
ReplyDeleteAs a nation, the rights our people have are the rights that we as a nation decide to have. I think that all of our citizens should have a right to health care and that our government should step in and provide health care options for our fellow citizens who aren't otherwise getting health care.
And the government can -- and should -- treat the health care insurance industry and the health care companies differently than it does other businesses -- through taxes and laws that keep profit levels in check so that the costs of health care in our country are under control.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTom, not to burst your bubble, but WITH insurance, most 25 year olds still won't go get an annual physical! Hell, I went from the age of about 15 until I was closing in on, or just past 40 before I did. And I don't think I'm a big exception. (insert your own joke about "big" here)
ReplyDeleteWe could argue over the notion of a "right", but there really isn't a lot of reason to, other than quibbling. In my view, a "right" in this country is defined by the constitution. Laws come and go, with the exception of prohibition, amendments tend to stick around.
But regardless-you said something that I do agree with-namely that the insurance industry and health care companies are different. And they should probably be treated differently. I don't have an argument with portability, with availability of medical insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, with having no barriers to interstate offerings from insurance companies...these are good ideas, and they, if implemented, should make insurance more readily available, and cheaper. FORCE them to compete against each other for every stinking individual policy-that's my big concept. Get employers out of the business. That's capitalism, that's how costs go down, that's how advances are made. Or so says my book on economic theory! :-)
A great little paragraph from Ron Paul about the health care bill.
ReplyDeleteFrustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many – the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.