ObamaCare is Evil.
Health insurance is the problem, not the solution, for spiraling medical costs.
The cost of health care in this country is out of control because the decision-makers are not paying the bills.
The insurance companies are trying to reverse that trend by putting themselves (the bill-payers) into the decision-making seat, which they do by denial of coverage. This (rightly) offends the consumers. ObamaCare seeks to reverse the trend by putting themselves (the bill-payers, which under their plan is now the government) into the decision-making seat, which they will again achieve by denial of coverage. This still offends thinking consumers -- if not today, then certainly within 5-6 years, when it takes full effect. Both efforts are wrong-headed and positively Evil.
I think that we should reverse the trend by making the decision-makers (the consumers of health care) pay the bills. Ultimately they already are, but health insurance equalizes the cost so that there is no direct correlation between health care choices and out-of-pocket costs -- except to the insurance companies. That must change if we are going to solve the problem.
It turns out that most of the people in this country are too stupid to manage their own health care intelligently without some prodding. That is unfortunate, but a predictable consequence of being dead last among industrial nations in math and science education. The amount of coercion needed to solve this problem is fortunately very small. No massive government program like ObamaCare is needed.
We only need to require every citizen to fill out and file for public
inspection a simple half-page Health Care Plan, for themselves and all
Every person, or whoever they are dependent on, can and should be required
to file such a form, or else consciously have a government agency file
a (blank) default on their behalf. It's a little late to catch people on
the census this year, but that would be a good way to get everybody involved.
The government can even fund such charities directly if they (and the taxpayers) so choose, but the charities must operate on their own budget, not spending more on care than they have in donations. The ObamaCare "public option" could become such a charity if they wish to forego any coercive payments by the consumers.
These charities can choose to restrict their services to truly needy
persons by whatever lawful criteria they publish (that is, not discriminating
against patients on the basis of race, religion, or national origin). They
might, for example, limit the care to emergencies and to those willing
to wait in long lines. Gainfully employed people would prefer to spend
a little money to get served more quickly or to have more elective procedures
covered. This is a reasonable trade-off.
Second, there is an easy transition from the present system. The insurance companies already have in place insurance plans that drop unchanged into Part 2 of the form. They can continue to market their plans to the consumers, and they can continue to build in their own denial-of-care policies as they choose, provided that these policies are made public so the consumer can choose a competing policy that offers more benefits (presumably at monthly higher cost).
Employers can construct their own hybrid self-insurance + major medical plans, and persuade their employees towards frugality by refunding some of the excess unused cash portions to the employees who did not use the benefits. This is different from ObamaCare, which explicitly uses penalty taxation to discourage such cost reduction measures as self-insurance.
The government is free under this program to offer its own "public option"
insurance to people under the same criteria it imposes on the other insurance
companies, namely, that it must operate under its budget and is not coercive.
The insurance companies and the taxpayers might balk at massive government
funding of such a plan unless there are reasonable protections built into
the program to prevent "fraud, waste and abuse," but as many of us are
already aware, merely the fact that it is a government program makes the
occurrence of "fraud, waste and abuse" unavoidable.
The People's Choice Health Care plan puts that power back into the hands of the people. It even takes power away from the present insurance companies. Nobody will like this plan -- except the people, who are empowered by it, and who get to save money which they can then spend on other pleasures. It isn't particularly attractive to the poor people. They would still get free health care (as they do today), but it remains inconvenient and hard to get, and it doesn't include luxury services which only the rich can afford today, but would apparently be included in their "free" health care under ObamaCare (that's not true, but there are a lot of lies surrounding ObamaCare, which most people lack the information to recognize).
If the USA were an informed Democracy, then the People's Choice Health
Care plan would be the law of the land tomorrow. If the USA were a
Republic where our elected representatives and senators had our best interests
at heart, then the People's Choice Health Care plan would be the
law of the land tomorrow. If the USA were a benevolent dictatorship, then
the People's Choice Health Care plan would be the law of the land
If the Republican Party in the USA wanted to take Congress back from the party currently in power, they would promise to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the People's Choice Health Care plan next year. If the Democratic Party in the USA wanted to stay in power, they would immediately repeal ObamaCare and replace it with the People's Choice Health Care plan this year.
But I fear none of these things are true.
So we are stuck with ObamaCare, the health care fiasco more than 60% of the American people don't want today, and all of us won't want when its draconian measures kick in four or five years from now.
2010 May 10