The Obamacare precedent is that the government SHOULD be
responsible for the medical coverage of all Americans.
Not knowing a ton of information about health care industry
I’m reluctant to wade into this topic. But here it goes…
I don’t like the idea
of government sponsored health care or health insurance because it uses public
money for private business. This distorts the market because public money is an
endless buffet of ‘promises’ never completely delivered. As a society we can
carry some debt on interstates and bridges or disaster relief and war but not
private health insurance. Hospital visits will get more frequent and medical
plans will cover more ailments as long as taxpayers are funding the bill.
Medicare runs out of funding consistently.
I can’t imagine the Republican plan to overhaul the ACA
(Affordalbe Care Act) will be much cleaner than the original Democrat plan. They
don’t do minutia and shouldn’t be asked to. We wouldn’t ask long haul truckers
to race their rigs in the Indy 500. They weren’t designed for it. This is a job
for markets. Congress can help by removing restrictions on levels of coverage
or by allowing some interstate commerce to increase competition among insurers.
Officials don’t help us buy food or gas, why do we need them
for health care?
Obamacare puts taxpayers on the hook for individuals’ health
care, or at least the price of it.
It might sound mild but it is a significant change of course
for Americans who think and act in market based terms for most goods and
services. I get that the market is decidedly less free than it used to be. New
homes, cars, food and energy are all frequently subsidized through direct
payments and rebates. Both the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program and the new home tax
credits were forms of subsidies. A subsidy is just money from the government to
help with the cost of a good or service. Often we come out ahead, like I did on
the housing credit, occasionally we lose out.
How well did used car dealers do under Cash for
Clunkers?
Economists (good
ones) hate market intervention because it distorts the real value or price of
an item. If your corner Quicki Mart
owner gets a 50 cent rebate from Pepsi for every bottle, he can sell pop
cheaper than everyone else. Pepsi made the pop at Quicki Mart cheaper than
at both EZ buy and Save More. The real market value of
Pepsi is something closer to what EZ buy
and Save More sell it at. Pepsi
distorted the real value of the pop sold at convenience stores by subsidizing Quicki Mart.
No serious person thinks we need a government subsidy so EZ buy and Save More can sell Pepsi at the same rate as Quicki Mart. Or that either shop couldn’t try to sell it cheaper to
compete with Quicki Mart. We do treat
health care this way though.
Large insurers with thousands of members offer plans at
lower rates than small insurers. The reason is simple; the coverage they offer is
broader and comes with rebates on hospital and clinic visits. Big health
insurers can afford to sell cheaper than their competitors because of the
rebate they get from providers. Governments have no more business regulating
this than the price of Pepsi at corner stores.
Yes I understand that health care is much more serious than
carbonated drinks, but not recognizing this as something for private industry
to handle is what leads to high prices. Laws insisting everyone have coverage
puts pressures on employers and insurance companies to cover everyone. The only
way it works is because of the rebate the insurer gets from the government for offering a
plan they couldn’t afford without it.
This is like insisting everyone buy Pepsi. If you can’t
afford it the government will help you pay for it by giving you special coupons
for EZ Buy and Save More.
The president wanted to get a massive health care law done
before he left office, so bad in fact that the framework was built to fall
apart. A federal pyramid with mostly older and sicker Americans at the top
collapses of its own weight eventually.
Obamacare was exactly
that kind of precedent, one that made official the belief that governments
should be the ultimate judge of life and liberty.
I don’t think the Republicans will improve things much because
we’ve crossed the Rubicon between roles of government and roles of citizens. We
now think health care just needs to run better, a massive shop with an efficient
manager. Republicans will save money and cut costs, probably. It misses the
real point. They have no business selling it or regulating it, beyond some very
minor things. Let the hospitals, doctors, drug companies, hospice centers,
insurance providers and specialists figure it out. They know how.
This isn’t my precedent.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment