In summarizing the Battle of Lepanto in his Book “Culture and Carnage”, Victor Davis Hanson wrote; “The alternative to capitalist-financed warfare was either simple coercion—the forced impressments of warriors without pay—or tribal musters fueled by promises of booty.”
In the same way, the alternative to capitalist-financed healthcare is either simple coercion by the government—the forced requirement to purchase a government approved healthcare program—or promises of booty for your particular State, union or interest group.
The United States has never really attempted the capitalist approach to healthcare. The insurance companies have always been saddled with state and federal regulations, but at the same time, they have been allowed to operate as regional monopolies.
Now that Healthcare is a primary political concern, the government has the ability to move either in the direction of more freedom and more personal responsibility; or in the direction of more centralized control and the legal bribes that go along with government money. The Healthcare Bill recently passed by the Senate is a move in the inefficient direction.
President Obama ushered in a new age of transparency and thus we can see how votes are bought with three hundred-million-dollar earmarks, how only one political party being invited to negotiate for your healthcare future and how a bill can get through Congress against the will of a large majority of Americans.
Obama and liberals in general believe that the state is there to level the playing field. The state is the decision maker in determining how to compensate those who by an accident of race gender or class aren’t as successful as White Christian Males. This it is acceptable in their eyes for Michelle Obama to make $300,000 and claim that she is a victim by virtue of her race and gender; while an Appalachian coal miner who earns $30,000 is part of the problem.
President Obama has repeatedly said; “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise. . . . If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”
However in the current bill, which by the way, Obama is eager to sign; Americans will be required to buy government-approved health insurance. It would be illegal for insurance companies to offer choices in insurance plans beyond the handful of very similar ones that the government would allow and it would become illegal to pay your doctor directly for more than a certain percentage of your care.
If this bill is passed into law this year, tax increases and Medicare reductions will start next year while the insurance changes won’t kick in until 2014. This is being done in order to disguise the actual costs of the bill, which according to the Congressional Budget Office, American taxpayers will be on the hook for approximately $2.5 trillion for the first ten years of Obamacare (2014 to 2023) — about triple the false number of $871 billion that the Democrats are spreading. The $871 billion only covers the cost of insurance coverage expansions, which is only a portion of the bill.
So to summarize; the government plan will cost $2.5 trillion and it will cut Medicare benefits to seniors. It will either force a large premium increase on young people who will be compelled to buy health insurance; or it will bankrupt all private insurance companies because young people won’t have to buy insurance until they are sick and then won’t have to pay for any pre-existing conditions. After all of the time and effort spent on this bill, it is still unclear which direction this healthcare legislation will take.
And on top of it all, there will still be 23 Million Americans still uninsured.
How about a more reasonable approach to the problem? I modestly call it “Jim’s Solution”; none of these solutions originate with me, that’s why I’m modest about them. But why don’t we, first of all, break down the problem into its aggregate costs and work on them one at a time.
Lawsuits against doctors are a large part of healthcare expenses; why not put a cap on the punitive rewards and throw bad doctors out of the profession rather than forcing some doctors to pay hundreds of thousands for malpractice insurance? This bill, as it stands right now, does nothing to address this problem. If your anesthesiologist has to pay $200,000 a year for his insurance costs, how much more will he charge you?
Why should the government make it illegal for insurance companies to charge for pre-existing conditions? Insurance companies simply raise the rates on everybody else to make up for the costs of the less healthy. I like to smoke and drink and eat fatty food. I also like to drive my motorcycle too fast and I have the tickets to prove it, but I will pay the same insurance prices that you will pay. It sounds like a good deal for me –but too bad for you sucker!
What if insurance companies were free to charge their own rates but had to compete with other companies everywhere. Poor people with pre-existing conditions might need a government subsidy to help them pay for the market generated costs? But wouldn’t we all be better off?
Even though some people will require subsidies, the system shouldn’t allow the same healthcare costs for people who abuse their own bodies and then expect you to pay for their self-made problems.
Why does the government give tax breaks to businesses when they purchase health care for their employees, but individuals can’t get those same tax breaks if they want to purchase healthcare on their own? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give tax breaks to individuals instead of to businesses?
Individuals should have the ability to change health insurance plans more frequently, just like they do with auto insurance or household insurance. Any regulations that interfere with this problem should be eliminated. This includes specific state mandates along anti-trust exemptions.
Consumers need to know the costs of what they are using. If insurance companies were in charge of their own policies, they could then offer programs that had higher deductibles but had much cheaper premiums. People who purchased these policies would have an incentive to ask their doctor questions about costs and would make decisions based on the price of specific procedures. This would drive costs down in a major way.
Obviously, there should be some government involvement in healthcare. Government aid will always be required for the poor and many people with pre-existing conditions will probably need government help in paying their premiums. I see no problem with the government offering free inoculations and basic care along with some catastrophic care, but the overwhelming majority of healthcare would be better in every way and also cheaper if decisions were privately made rather than mandated.
Related posts:
Dear Admin:
Here (better late than never, right???) is an interesting article that discusses the constitutionality of the Reid Bill. The analysis does not tie into Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment, as your post implies, but does highlight both the Commerce and Takings Clauses, among other issues. It is typical to consider this type of bill under as many constitutional clauses as applicable (analysis is more of a process of elimination) – however, based on my limited understanding, the EP clause is the best route (for a pro-health care attorney).
http://www.pointoflaw.com/columns/archives/2009/12/impermissible-ratemaking-in-he.php
RWM
Dear Rose,
You are probably the only person who has read this post besides myself- I’m flattered. I will have to study your idea and get back to you.
One funny thing that I’ve noticed in my short blogging experience is that there is no correlation between thought and effort put into the posts and reader interest.
I can see how many clicks each of my posts get and you would be shocked just how much interest there was in that dumb, throw away post- http://www.backbenchmedia.com/princeton-law-school-tops-the-list-again/