Posts
I've been so busy lately I haven't had time to sit down and put together a well written entry on the Health care bill, but I need to at least thow out a few thoughts.
The health care bill, as it currently stands, would create what is being called a "Public Option." Public Option basically means a government owned and operated insurance company would be created and insurance plans would be offered to anyone who can't get, or doesn't want, an insurance plan from a private insurance company. Problem number 1: Unfair competition. President Obama insists that private insurance companies would not be affected and that it is not the intent of this bill to put anyone out of business. Unfortunately, what one says, and what actually happens, are not always the same thing. I would ask any sensible person to consider the following scenario and then explain to me, if you can, why you think this scenario is not possible.
Scenario:
The Government health plan is put in place and is up and running. It is in direct competition with private companies. The government wants more people to switch to their plan so they offer a better plan for a better price; possibly even free. Private insurances lower their prices and alter their plans in order to compete. The government continues to be more competitive even though it is losing money. The government plan stays afloat because it is paid for by tax dollars. If they run out of money they simply raise taxes, print more, or move money from other areas. Eventually, private companies can no longer compete and they go out of business. People have no choice but to switch to the government plan. Now the government has complete control over all health care in our country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see the problem in that; however, even government-run health insurance is better than none--especially if one becomes very, very ill and doesn't have privatized health insurance (because it costs too much).
ReplyDeleteI have to respectfully dissagree with that. I believe it would be better not to have any insurance at all than government run insurance.
ReplyDeleteOver half of the bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills. Many of these are not only the uninsured; there are plenty of people who have medical insurance but still go bankrupt because they can't afford copays. For example, the copay on my friend's pre-approved MRI was $600. If a person gets very ill or in an accident, add to that any ER copay, 20% cap copay, doctor fees, lab work, ambulance fee, and any other fee, that can add up to a lot of money. Even more, there are some medications/tests/procedures that may be medically necessary but insurance denies coverage. What does the person do then? Usually he has to go without, or get it and file bankruptcy. If a person is uninsured, the doctor often will not even order the tests/procedures that may be needed because they're expensive. The financial burden on individuals and taxpayers alike is enormous! My argument really only portrays part of the financial burden. There is much to be considered beyond the financial realm. I found a very interesting article that may put my point of view into words better than I can. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2003/Jun/The%20Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Being%20Uninsured/davis_consequences_itl_663%20pdf.pdf
ReplyDeleteMost of the discussion of "health care" in America centers on who gets it and who pays for it. The care received/dispensed in America has no equal in the world. If you don't like the way the insurance company tells you what you can and can't have done, what makes the government any better arbitor? It sounds to me more rationed care by telling doctors what they can and can't do for the patient. I think that the "uninsured" figures bantied about in the media are hyped up. Any solution has to inlcude the congress living by the rules they legislate for us to follow. So far that hasn't happened. Their health care has no bounds because we get to pay for it through taxes. Two examples of government run programs: Social Security and Medicare. If the doctors had to live on the medicare payment schedule, two things would happen: no one would become doctors and the current doctors would starve. The government has complete control of medicare, why would we want everyone to be forced to live with medicare for our health insurance? Part of the problem that will have to be addressed is the fact that health care is administered by States. Each state has their own standards that differ greatly across the country. Some regulation via interstate commerce should be enacted to help standardize the care from one state the to next and the ability to have insurance that transports across the country regardless of where you live. Even my 'government' insurance program is greatly different depending on where I live. Bottom line: my opinion is that there is less concern over improving the delivery of health care and more about controlling the vast amounts of money in the industry that the government seems to want out of the private sector.
ReplyDelete