Thursday, September 17, 2009

Doctor, It really hurts

Now that Max Baucus has revealed his conception of what health care reform would look like, I wrote to my representatives in congress detailing my objections to a massive reform effort. In the cause of brevity I did not elaborate on the need to fix certain gross anomalies in the current health care system on a gradual piece by piece basis, but I think that should be the ultimate approach and goal of the whole excercise.

Because it is almost impossible to gain their attention for even a few nano seconds, I tried to keep it short but my best efforts still came up with a one page letter. My wife advised me that the best way to write is to put the word "for" or "against" in big letters at the beginning and end of the communication which is all that matters. Good advice. I guess they have heard all the arguments, reasoned or not and don't have time to rehash exactly why each individual is either for or against a proposal.

So in order to enlighten at least the loyal readers of this blog, I offer my arguments.

I am concerned about the mandatory aspects of the proposed health care reform initiative. To be forced to purchase something or to join an organization is abhorrent to the principles of a free democracy and individual rights.

I am further concerned by the intractability of the public option debate. If there is a public option, it will cost too much and give government too much control over healthcare choices. If we don't have a public option, the insurance companies will reap a vast windfall at the public's expense. It also does not make sense to increase the costs of the healthcare industries by taxing them. This will only shift the costs right back to the consumer. It’s like everyone taking in everyone else’s laundry.

It is not the government's role to insure everyone who chooses not to spend the money on health insurance. For over two hundred years Americans have had the right to choose to assume risk.


In view of the above, I think it would be best if the entire initiative would be defeated.

6 comments:

FBB said...

"It is not the government's role to insure everyone who chooses not to spend the money on health insurance."

What about people who don't have a choice? There are people who forgo various prescriptions because of cost, or do not qualify for medicaid, but the price is too steep to pay for it on their own.

I'm not necessarily saying that I think a public option is good, only that I don't think the "choice" is like going out to eat. Some choose to spend on it, and some choose not too, but with healthcare premiums what they are, some really ave no choice at all.

Dipsy said...

Soupeater you have inspired me. I just fired off a letter to my Senator. Something I have been meaning to do for some time now. thanks

soupeater said...

fbb I agree that the public option is preferable to no public option if you feel that something needs to be done and that people need to be forced into health insurance.

What I mainly object to is the mandatory aspect. The poor won't be able to afford it but they will be forced to pay the money somehow. They choose not to buy insurance now not because it isn't worth it but because they can't afford it. Others don't want to spend their finite resources on it. Either way, they choose where they will get the greatest benefit to themselves.

And don't pooh pooh the idea of "death panels." It's more possible than you think.

FBB said...

The question that I have is how is the government taking over health care really different from the insurance companies, in terms of who is making decisions related to our health. I think we have less control then we like to believe. Not that government control is the way to go, I just think we're trading one overseer for another.

RabbiM said...

FBB, you give me a stimulus idea: force every American to go out to eat at least twice a week! It might do wonders for the culinary options here in my home town!

I asked a retired executive at a non-profit Blue Cross in a state where they mandate that Blue Cross take all comers: There's still the same percentage of uninsured there as in other states. The real solutions are not what is being suggested by the Senate or House. These are big issues not need to be dealt with incrementally, not in a Grand Bargain.

soupeater said...

FBB
The reason why a public option will lead to government control of health care is because it will massively compete with the other insurers and result in a de facto government monopoly, greatly increasing the government's role in health care.

Right now, you can still decide which insurance company you want to have a say in what health care you get. If you don't like their policies, you can find another company that suits you better.

If the government takes over, it will be one size fits all.