I got home from work just in time to catch the President's speech to Congress today, selling his health care reform.
I have to say, he did a pretty good job. Whether you like him or not, that man is a born orator, with a resonant voice that he pitches damn near perfectly depending on what emotion or response he is trying to evoke, and whoever writes his speeches is a master.
The way Obama framed his plan was quite compelling, I suppose, especially when he tossed the "tort reform" bone to the Republicans, but as well as he can speak, he cannot disguise the fundamental moral flaws inherent in the so called "public option".
Not everyone wants to be insured. There's no real reason for a healthy young guy in his early twenties with no family to worry about to be insured. This plan would take that guy's choice away. If this passes, health insurance would become mandatory for everyone, because as he put it, the taxpayer could not be expected to foot the bills for people's irresponsibility.
How will they enforce this? How does government enforce anything? That's right - with fines and jail. Government will yet again be fining and imprisoning "irresponsible" people to save them from themselves.
That's the kicker. Once government is in charge of something like healthcare, they can (and will - look at the UK) make demands like that, for the public good. It won't stop there, either. Since they're footing the bill, the government will feel entitled to make all kinds of decisions for us with regards to keeping health costs down. Just about any behavior you can think of could be regulated in this manner, as an appeal to reign in healthcare costs. It won't happen right away, but it will happen.
Individual liberty simply cannot exist in such an environment - it's too expensive when the government is writing the checks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Kevin,
What about the President's parallel to car insurance? Would you want to be in an accident and have your premiums go up because of uninsured motorists? There may be nuances where the comparison doesn't translate, but overall the idea is sound - that someone else's irresponsibility becomes a burden when you don't have car insurance and has done so with healthcare. As far as the public option, it was only one piece of the healthcare exchange - an attempt to provide otherwise uninsured Americans affordable healthcare if the market did not. That's it. As far as it being mandatory, if you're alive your health should be cared for at any age. A lot of things we do are for the public good. We follow street signs and traffic lights for our own good and the public good. The devil is in the details, but it's far overdue.
Where does the public good end, though? Nationalizing healthcare gives the gov opportunity to step in and start regulating all sorts of behavior for the public good, and since taxpayer dollars will be paying for all this, new restrictions will start to sound more and more reasonable. Your line of what is acceptable under the public good is obviously a little further down the road than mine. The public option NEEDS to force young healthy people into the plan in order to make it sustainable, so those who won't need or use healthcare frequently will subsidize those who do. You call that the public good - I call it theft.
I wish health insurance WAS more like car insurance - we don't expect our employers or the gov to pay that at least. Making the patient rather than the employer the customer would go a long way to getting us out of this mess.
Yes, the state mandates that I have insurance but that is a requirement I must comply with if I want to drive on public streets. Should I purchase a vehicle for use on my own property, insurance is not required. I can choose not to drive a car - I can walk, ride a bicycle or take public transport instead if I like. There's no way to opt out of this health insurance.
Regulation of healthcare is different than nationalization of it. I don't see where having a public option in the portfolio of insurance options available to those not covered by their employers is a bad thing. I get that the option is which provider to have in healthcare not whether to have it at all, but it is just an option. As far as the young and healthy being needed to make it sustainable, having a blend of participants is what makes any type of insurance plan work. Some have major illnesses and some don't. In the long-term though everyone having good healthcare and preventative care saves dollars for everyone. Even those young healthy people develop chronic, debilitating disease at times. I agree that patients need to better understand the costs that their healthcare entails. At the same time I think companies have a vested interest in the health of their employees as does our country at large. I don't know that we have seen the final rule on opting out on health insurance. To avoid the car insurance, you would never use the roads. What if you never used the U.S. healthcare system at all?
Healthcare is ALREADY one of, if not THE most regulated industries in our nation. More regulation will not fix it. I believe that current regulation is the main reason costs are so high. As for the young and healthy making every type of insurance work, you're absolutely correct. The difference is that they VOLUNTARILY participate in private insurance. That's a whole world of difference than government coercion which ultimately boils down to the threat of force.
Your last sentence is a poor analogy. The US healthcare system, unlike the roads is not (currently) the property of the government. Like any other commodity out there, you can use it if you purchase it.
BTW Brett, thanks for stopping by and making a comment :). Hope you're not risking trouble at work flor this...
It always stirikes me as a bizarre coincidence that the most heavily regulted industries are the ones with the most problems. Weird, that - it's as if goverment interference makes things worse, or something...
I'm enjoying the dialogue and hope you are too. On regulation, I'm not saying that more regulation is always better (or even often better), but liked what I heard on healthcare. I understand what you are saying on losing the voluntary nature of healthcare, but it everyone has health to maintain. Kids should be healthy and free from chronic disease, but we include our children on our insurance. I guess if it was so clear cut that there was a healthy subset of society that did not value healthcare insurance I could come around, but I can't picture that group. Lastly, I think the road analogy holds up. Regardless of ownership, access still means accountability to everyone that uses the resource whether they are co-owners (insurance requirements) or in a customer pool (insurance requirements). Both situations say that you need to be responsible to others in the system to participate.
BTW - No work trouble and I really enjoy our discussions.
Sorry for the delayed response. Yes everyone has health to maintain, but how they do it, or even if they do it should be their choice, not enforced at the barrel of a gun by government. The system you are promoting is forcing people into healthcare to keep your costs down. That is wrong. The health care "system" or "resource" you speak of is actually made up of people providing a service, people who have a right to the fruits of their labors in a free market. The only accountability I have to them is to pay them if I use their services. The bottom line is that I am opposed to using the power of government to force people to do things "for their own good". It's morally reprehensible and contrary to the principles of individual liberty. There's always all this talk about the individual's responsibility to society - what about society's responsibility to the the individual. All I ask is to be left alone. I have no problem if you and others of a like mind want to voluntarily associate in a health plan to mitigate costs, but don't use the power of government to take my money so you can save a buck. A robber at least is more honest in that he does his own dirty work.
I wouldn't dream of using the government to coerce you into something you don't want to do. All I ask is that you show me the same consideration. THAT is the only responsibility we should owe each other.
Post a Comment