Political Pulse: Health Care
|
A post by "J. Mal" To see more posts click here |
The health care debate in our country is heating up. President Obama has made it very clear that he wants to take action on this problem as soon as he can. (His plan)
The problem is that neither democrats nor republicans are advancing a practical solution that will be in the best interest of the American people. Here is President Obama last night on ABC taking questions. My favorite part in this interview was when a executive from an insurance company wanted to know how they could compete with a new player, who also is referring the game? (That clip is in the link below)
Democrats assert that every human being has a right to health care, and that it is the government’s job to provide for those who cannot afford it. So in some ways they are flat out saying that they will take money from some and give health care to others. How is that not stealing? It may seem like the moral thing to do, but the government does not have the right to implement such a policy.
Another problem is that Republicans are not putting forth anything better. They want to shift the taxes around and make it seem like they are for a free market plan, when in reality both sides of the arguments are just for more government control.
There a lot of problems in the system right now, and I do think that a public debate about the issues should really be had. One problem I see however is that all the points of view are not being evenly represented. I’ve heard some great ideas and opinions that have not once graced the headlines on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX or CNN.
Anyone who thinks that government is not part of the problem already, is being lied to. Currently, the government has it’s hand in so much of the health care industry it is crazy to think they are not to blame for the problems we face right now. Here is a great article about the reason behind the problems in the current system we have. Any time government gets involved, there is disruption in the markets and prices get out of control. Also, what would you say to the government assisting you in your preventative health measures? If Uncle Sam is footing the bill, do you think he’ll be happy with your McDonald’s and Marlboro diet?
Below is a point of view backed by free market ideology. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is a former doctor himself so his point of view should be given a little more consideration due to the fact he has been deeply involved in knowing how the system is set up and how it effects the patients he used to treat.
Personally, I know how messed up the system is. I have to stay at my current job in order to maintain my health care becuase I have a pre-existing condition that a private plan would not cover. Without the coverage my medication alone would be 2000$ a month. I’m lucky that I even have coverage in the first place, but I know that there needs to be changes. I think that if the government got out of the business of subsidizing the industry that we would all see the cost go down. Rep. Paul makes a great point about services like Lasik and Plastic Surgery. These services are not covered by insurance and the prices steadily drop year after year as more people use them.
In reality no matter what you agree with, do yourself a favor and open your mind to new ideas. There is a lot of information out there so learn about the issues and make an informed decision, not just an emotional or ideological one. If you’re reading this post you’ve already taken the first step. Search outside your normal spots for facts, talk to your friends about what they think. A wide open debate is needed on this issue and hopefully truth and common sense will prevail. But in the meantime all that I ask is
UdoTheDishes…
I happen to think Ron Paul is a pretty smart guy, and probably the smartest Republican in Washington, but there are some points he makes in his argument that I couldn’t quite follow. As best I can muster, part of his argument is as follows:
- the government forces everybody into the managed HMO/PPO care system that we’re in today
- the insurance and pharmaceutical companies who are most equipped to execute the managed care system use their positions to lobby and presumably dictate health care policy, effectively solidifying their positions as middle-men in the healthcare system (I think he refers to this as ‘corporate medicine’)
- over time, the health insurance industry grows and more and more health and pharm. companies enter the market to compete over customers
- despite the existence of more insurance providers, medical costs continue to rise
- the cause of the rise is of medical costs is because of government inflation
How are the free markets (health insurance providers) not a key player in this? I don’t buy the predictive “its all government’s fault” argument with this one.
The presumption that the medical industry is somehow going to ease up on prices just because of people who are uncovered by insurance is a pretty tough argument to sell, particularly since it infers that more people left uninsured will result in lower medical costs (he used Lasik and Plastic Surgery as examples of uncovered medical procedures that have gone down over the years). Medical costs are high because of basic supply and demand. It’s a business that sells a service everybody needs, so everybody’s gonna have to pay top dollar for it (look at oil). If you can’t afford insurance, don’t expect the doctor’s to cut you a break on healthcare costs, presuming they provide you with any medical service to begin with.
What I do agree with is that there should certainly be an option. I happen to like my insurance, and I highly doubt whatever plan the government would offer would be any better, so I’d likely pass on their plan. The government should only step in to help anybody who has no other choice but to go uninsured, and even then, that option should only be available to citizens who pay taxes in order to avoid hospitals from becoming global health-care clinics funded by American taxpayers.
It is literally impossible for the private sector to fairly compete against the public plan. The private sector has to pay taxes, account for its employees and benefits and not to mention make a profit. They have to pay whatever rates they can negotiate with the providers. The public plan dictates payments lower than would available to the private sector, they don’t have to pay taxes, and they don’t have to make a profit.
The problem with the addition of the public plan is that your private plan may no longer be available. Sure the government will allow you to keep your doctor if you want, but there’s no guarantee that the place you work will continue to offer your current healthcare program and why should they. The government entrance in the market is going to dissuade other insurance providers which will lessen the amount of competition. Many of the insurance providers that offer niche based coverage will be forced out. Naturally the price of the private sector insurance will rise in accordance with the marketplace while the public plan cost will not because they are not driven by market forces.
For some reason the link didnt attach on the last comment. This was my favorite part of the show.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/25/obama_wants_best_care_for_his_family.html
Who said that the government plan is contingent on employers? From what I understand, and granted the idea is relatively abstract at the moment, the government option is a means for those who a) work for themselves and can’t afford a private plan or b) work for an employer who cannot provide health insurance. This notion that government is going to somehow step-in and simply low-ball the private sector for the sake of owning the health-care industry just doesn’t make sense. Mind you, Nixon created the HMO-based system with the aid of advisor Henry Kaiser (guess what company Kaiser went on to start once Nixon was out of office…) with the intent of industrializing the health-care system.
The government plan is intended to serve as an alternative to those who have no other option but to go uninsured. The plan will undoubtedly have it’s sweeping limitations on what procedures are covered and not covered, much like any shitty HMO plan does now, but it provides a basic level of insurance that won’t force people to go untreated for basic illness and ailments. I have a PPO plan now, and I pay a reasonable rate, and there’s no way I would take a dilluted government plan over that even if the government plan were free. I don’t think employers can’t just simply scrap healthcare and tell their employees to get on the government program. In order for the government option to work, both practically and fiscally, it must be inferior to private plans available on the market. It may sound harsh, but that’s the best compromise for making sure all Americans are insured in a capitalistic society.
The dialogue of these comments was my goal. Keep up the good work, keep posting links, facts and POV.
Can you name one government run social program that has been fiscally well run and successful?
IRS? nope, Medicare, nope…social security, nope, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac… nope, FEMA, nope…
I’m just looking for an example that a government can do a better job than a private business at providing social programs for people in need, without becoming a huge black hole sucking tax dollar from everyone to prop up broken systems.
Well considering today’s climate, I’d say the UDL’s Federal Unemployment Insurance Program and the FDIC.
I think social programs are left up to the government mainly because the system can be reformed if it’s deemed inefficient or worthless over time. We’ve seen how reforms have inflated/deflated various social programs drastically over the past twenty years with the various administrations. The private sector is driven by the bottom line, that is to say that as long as the status quo continues to make money, we’re all stuck with the way things are.
Could you imagine if SS was privatized and handled by one of the goons on Wall St.? 401k’s are essentially the privatized version of social security and now most folks will never be able to retire.
The GOVERNMENT has caused the mess we’re in on almost every front…why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to think they could “fix” healthcare? Like the cable companies the government has enforced zoned insurance providers so only certain providers can work in a given area…it cuts down on competition (cable companies anyone?). The government (and bad management) ruined the American car industry too…they helped cause the economic down turn by promoting sub-prime loans. Welfare, medi-care/caide are all dimal failures…and poeple actually expect them to get it right THIS time? Obama has done nothing but spend wildly and virtually guaruntee our country’s bankruptcy…but he’ll do it right this time….Government programs suck horribly because of one intrinsic detail…they have no encentive to do better because they have no competition. If there is no competition, nothing succeeds. Throwing money at a problem won’t work anymore because we got none left after Bush and Obama. How can you say that Bush spend irresponsibly (which he absolutely did) and then triple that amount and say that you had to because Bush spent so much? And now we need to spend more to “fix” a problem that could be vastly improved by passing a couple laws and repealing others? I’m sick of the government spending money like it’s theirs.
The Obama Health public health plan is intended to compete with the private insurance plans at all levels. He says that if you are happy with your current plan then you can keep it. But if you are unhappy then the public plan will be an option for you. The initial plan is intended to start off covering small business and the uninsured but it leaves the option open for expanding it in future years to the rest of the population. The details I spelled out in my previous comment are how the government is going to handle the public plan by dictating to the providers what the government will pay for services which are currently being proposed, similar to how Medicare works. The Public payments are almost 19-30 percent lower than private insurance companies because the rates are set administratively and not by the market. The public plan would reimburse providers less than private payers would and sometimes less than the cost of care delivered. The private insurance companies cannot match that, it’s impossible. Private companies do not have to offer you healthcare. That is something that is considered a benefit for working for that company. The Lewin Group estimated that if the public plan is opened to only small businesses then 32 million people would lose their private insurance. If it is extended to the entire population then 119 million people would lose their coverage. You will have the option to choose your insurance but that same health care plan that you seem to be perfectly happy with may not be an option.
S-Dott I think you answered your own question on privatizing Social Security. If SS was privatized the public would have had an easier ability to get their own money out of poor investments and moving their money to better options as the market was tanking. Unfortunately the high tax rates the government has instituted on SS forced people to keep their money in the market because they were unable to move their own savings without penalty.
So it’s conclusive to say that, based on your last paragraph, that those who lost much of their 401k’s are entirely at fault? Give me a break. My retirement plan is based on TSP (most government employees have Thrift Savings Plans rather than 401k’s) and is mostly made up of government bonds, and I’ve actually gained money over the years in my retirement principal unlike many with 401ks.
I think its evident at this point that this debate could easily go on ad infinitum, but I think it’s fair to say that it’s going to take a balance between gov’t and private industry to make this work. There is entirely too much evidence against an all-government healthcare system as well as an all-privatized system.
Hopefully, Congress can get it’s shit together and reach an acceptable compromise on the matter that works for both the American taxpayer and the uninsured citizen.
QUOTED : “There is entirely too much evidence against an all-government healthcare system as well as an all-privatized system. ”
We as a country have never really had an all private system ever. Government has always had their hands in the system trying to dictate many different policies and practices. Taxing some, giving tax breaks to others. I’ve yet to see any analysis of a purely private system.