The amount of people who have been blogging about The Obama's health care plan is without end. It is for this reason I've generally left the issue alone here.
There is too much to say, and too much that we, as a population do not/cannot understand.
The best I can do with the issue is post a series of thoughts or ideas that may or may not make any sense and likely wont tie together into any sort of coherent policy preference, but I'll try.
First thing, we need to get the concept of a 'health care system' out our head. Health care, whatever you think it means, is not a system. It's an industry. A large, and ever growing, segment of our economy. Just like we can't refer to the Coal Mining System, the Automotive Manufacturing System, the Burgers and Fries Producing System without sounding just a little bit removed from the realities of what it we are dealing with/talking about.
The Health Care Industry is not, and should not be allowed to become, an operative branch of government.
Before we think of ways that the government can get involved in providing health care, how about we first think of ways that the government can uninvolve itself from those who are currently providing health care?
I kind of favor the idea that health insurance should be marketed much like automobile insurance. Sure, it means that a potentially child bearing woman in her twenties would pay a whole lot more for her coverage than a male counterpart; but this, I'm sure, would help level the playing field with the twenty-something male who buys auto insurance.
You wouldn't expect auto insurance,life insurance, or a homeowner's policy to cover a pre-existing condition, so why do we find it acceptable to mandate health insurance policies to do so?
What are the odds Obama and his merry band of leaders will subject their families to the same plan they want to mandate for the rest of us? How about 'zero'?
But, given the strength of government employee unions, odds are they will still preserve their status quo, better-than-the-rest-of-us, medical plans while private employers would be sticking the rest of us the public plan.
This will create a two tier society: those 'of the government' and the proletariat. Wasn't this type of system already deemed a failure by history?
Exactly was is "Health Care"? Do abortions count? How about wart removal? Penile Extensions? Physical therapy? Gym memberships? How often? And who decides these things?
If wrongfully denied coverage by my insurance provider, I have recourse through legal channels. Or my family will, should I die as a result. Do you really think we will be allowed to sue the Federal Government for the same reasons?
Remember 'Joe the Plumber'? After asking an embarassing question of the wrong person, his tax and child support records were made public. How safe do you think democracy and liberty will be when the government owns everyone's medical records?
I'm liking these vociferous 'Town Halls', and I enjoy seeing congressmen and senators finally recieving some due respect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As usual, you do a better job of summing up the main issues than most people do, Gino. One quibble, though:
You wouldn't expect auto insurance,life insurance, or a homeowner's policy to cover a pre-existing condition, so why do we find it acceptable to mandate health insurance policies to do so?
Life insurance is essentially a bet, so it's not the same thing as the other forms of insurance you mention. And that's where the distinction comes in. You can always get a new car or a new home, but you can't get a new body. If insurers don't pay for "pre-existing conditions," then you are pretty much stuck with bills that you won't be able to pay under the current system if you for whatever reason lose the insurance you have at the moment the condition first arises. That's a problem that needs to be addressed and one that will potentially bite both you and me in the ass.
I think it would be much easier to articulate opposition to government intervention in the health care market if the alternative were, in fact, non-intervention.
Unfortunately, the argument that is taking place (or at least the only one that matters in real-world terms) is between the different types of government interference. So I find it difficult (and probably pointless besides) to expend too much energy getting worked up over the Obama plan or the opposition to it.
Besides which both camps have displayed monumental stupidity and/or naivety in the last few weeks. I'm loathe to identify with either.
I'm pretty sure no one knows what the hell they are talking about, here. Including me.
brian: didnt i mention non-intervention, or a least a move in that direction, as my policy preference?
much of the problems concerning delivery are a result of govt dictates. lets solve this fisrt. who knows?we may find we dont have so much of a problem after all.
mark: a response to your comment will most likely be in post form.
Post a Comment