Wednesday, August 12, 2009

A Prescription for Limited Health Care Reform

Polls consistently show that most Americans are happy with their own doctors and health care. And they should be. This country is home to the most advanced health care in the world, and it welcomes a steady stream of patients from other nations who live under government-run systems of the kind being pushed on us by President Obama.

Perhaps this explains why more and more people are rebelling against Barack Obama's proposed takeover of the the health care system (which the president now euphemistically calls "health insurance reform"). By the same logic, since most people are unhappy with Congress but pleased with their own representatives, perhaps we should do away with the House and Senate and replace them with a panel of unelected bureaucrats.

Obama and the rest of the Democrats say health insurance costs are too high and coverage is too low, and in this they are right. The current system, set up with the encouragement of the federal government decades ago, unnecessarily links employment and insurance, and removes the responsibility of the consumer to make choices. As a result, there is no check on prices, and people have no idea what their care really costs. If they lose their job, they lose their insurance and have to face the inflated costs of coverage alone.

Setting aside the fictitious, wildly inflated number of 47 million uninsured (which includes everyone from illegals to healthy young people who choose to do without), they propose to fix these problems of the health care system with a gargantuan, phased-in takeover, and people are getting nervous.

After all, if our elected leaders botched the relatively simple and inexpensive "Cars for Clunkers" program, why should we give them control of one-sixth of the American economy, particularly when lives are at stake? And many Americans don't like the idea of paying for abortions or illegal aliens, which would be permitted under the current trillion-dollar plan (that somehow will not increase our costs). It's like pounding a nail with a stick of dynamite: It might work, but I wouldn't want to get too close.

If the Democrats just for a minute can stop calling their worried fellow citizens Nazis, Klansmen, and racists for refusing to pay for this health care clunker, perhaps they can get down to actually fixing what needs fixing in the current system. At a minimum, they can read their own bill and pledge to apply to themselves and their families whatever reform is finally passed.

5 Comments:

Blogger Steven Gertz said...

Stan, was Cars for Clunkers botched? On the contary, it seems to me to have been quite successful! The money was used up very quickly.

Living in England and seeing first-hand how Britain's socialized healthcare works (NHS), I am not nearly as worried about it as many of my fellow Americans. Given the choice between corrupt insurance companies and a far-from-perfect government-run healtchare industry, at this point I think I'd opt for socialized healthcare.

What I am concerned about are provisions like taxes covering abortions, an abominable part of the bill. That's worth fighting against.

7:11 AM  
Blogger Stan Guthrie said...

I'd rather have competition than a government monopoly. You may feel differently if you get really sick and get put on a waitinng list or told they can't afford to pay for youur treatment.

10:20 AM  
Blogger Stan Guthrie said...

CFC was botched in the sense that they expected the money to last for months and it was gone in days. No it wasn't botched in the sense that people didn't participate; you will always have people eager to take "free" (someone else's) money.

10:23 AM  
Blogger Steven Gertz said...

Stan, I'm no expert on the NHS, and queues are a problem here. But I've read enough articles and spoken with enough people to know that when someone is really dangerously sick, they get moved to the front of the queue, not the back. We have a Christian doctor who lives next door who works in A&E (Britain's equivalent of the ER). He has told me they 'never' turn away people when they're in real need.

The people waiting in queues are those who have problems or diseases that are not life-threatening. As far as 'rationing' is concerned, this takes place most often with terminally ill patients. But this is done in consultation with patients, not apart from them. I really think the NHS is more humane than a lot people are making it out to be. Check out this blog a friend pointed me to: http://potentialandexpectations.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/this-americans-experience-of-britains-healthcare-system/

4:55 PM  
Blogger Stan Guthrie said...

Steve,

I read the post, which is interesting. I'll try to keep a more open mind. There are, as you indicate, problems with both systems, but I think there are changes we could make here wirhout having to go socialist: de-linkinng insurance and work, ending frivolous lawsuits, stopping the pre-existing conditions madness, allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, etc.

As far as the profit motivve goes, I assume you know that there would be no drug companies that make life-saving drugs without it.

Peace!

Stan

5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home