Coming Clean

Generated in response to: http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/health-care-reform-impact/

Honestly, I don’t see how it can be viewed as fair if some tax burden is not placed on everyone to fund a universal health care option. While I understand that the wealthy have money to spare, such taxation is a punitive damage to their success on the part of the larger populace – i.e. it’s not encouraging the wealthy to continue in their success in America and/or to take it elsewhere. Likewise, when in American history have the people ever rewarded non-contribution as is being proposed here and now?! Maybe some think that such a view of fairness makes me a Republican – I hope there are other and more significant areas of debate that would define such a distinction.

There are three components that have significantly contributed to rising health care costs that are not being addressed by this new legislation:
1. Even if you have health care, it’s still an elective process. You have to choose to receive care; it can never be forced on you. Most Americans wait to see a doctor much too late, such that the cost of care resultant of undiagnosed conditions is significantly more expensive. This won’t change under the new plan.
2. Americans are unhealthy. We have a consumer culture built on unhealthy habits. Whether it be Wallstreet or McDonald’s, our culture has a premise of greedy consumption without thought to consequence. Short of using police and taxation policies to make people live healthier, general health is going to remain poor and care is going to remain high (unless this becomes a rationing criteria). Living habits between the USA and other high-income nations is stark in their contrast.
3. Americans are litigious. Health care providers deal with far too many frivolous law suits that stem mainly from complications that are more directly related to individuals not caring for themselves than any wrong doing on the part of the doctor. Given that there is no tort reform present in this legislation, that will not change, thus those costs will remain – and will likely begin to increase as new people are brought into a universal health care system.

The other thing I really don’t like about this legislation is that it places the government as the rationer of health care. The government decides what coverage a policy must have and, thus by extension, what procedures are available for you to elect. Granted, this is an improved situation for those people without health care, but for everyone else … well, it could be a bum deal and it places everyone at the mercy of the government (i.e. you can’t shop around anymore for the coverage you want). For all the valid concerns there have been raised about the loss of liberties the past 8 years, you would think this would give people – especially Democrats – more pause.

As to the numbers of who does not have health care, this article sites 1/3 of the population is uninsured or underinsured. The President the other day sited 45 million people are without insurance. I have heard it argued that he is including an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants (i.e. non-tax-paying individuals) in that figure. So depending on how you look at it, that’s roughly 10 to 15 percent of the US population without insurance. I still have not heard how many of those people have health care options they elect to not take (e.g. Waffle House employees). I don’t know what underinsured means, but with our public health system as it is, I imagine most Americans are pretty well covered, certainly by historic standards.

So, to me, it’s not about who has it or who doesn’t have it but how to drive down costs. Extending coverage to everyone that does not have insurance doesn’t seem like a plan to drive down costs. However, driving down costs under any system – private or public – opens up health care to more individuals as they can then afford it. It seems to me that this plan is treating the symptoms (not everyone can pay for health care) instead of the cause (costs are high, people are unhealthy)

The USA was founded on the principle that the populace’s then reigning government was too oppressive, and that people should be able to live largely free of government interference. It seems like we’re reversing course here by placing all our medical eggs into a government basket.