The controversy surrounding the health insurance debate, and the case before the Supreme Court, is rather complicated to say the least. The law, which is thousands of pages long, places restrictions on physicians, insurance companies, and patients alike. The bottom line is this: this case shouldn't even be at the Supreme Court level. If the government had stayed out of private and economic matters, as the constitution intended, this wouldn't be an issue.
I don't think that everyone should be forced to get insurance, but I understand that many uninsured patients skip out on hospital bills. Since a hospital must treat everyone who comes in, this places financial strain on these institutions, then the cost is absorbed by other patients.
OK, so fine, if they want everyone to get insurance, it should be like auto insurance. Auto insurance is dictated by the free market. There are hundreds of different companies and plans available. Some of the main benefits to this would be:
-Competitive pricing. If a new company wishes to enter the market, they are going to have to price their product lower than their competitors. Eventually the pricing, re-pricing, and adjusting will cause the market to reach some sort of equilibrium. The health insurance market is what's referred to as an oligopoly. In an oligopoly, entrance to the market is somewhat difficult, but not impossible, and a handful of large firms tend to dominate the market share. If all healthcare were privatized, more companies would need to enter the market or the others would need to expand, leading to:
-Job creation. Private insurance companies hire workers. Their salaries are paid by the profits the company makes, not by taxpayer dollars. This would alleviate the burden of taxpayers paying for Medicaid and Medicare workers. Speaking of Medicare and Medicaid:
-If the government were to do away with these entitlement programs, or phase out Medicare gradually, a large portion of the budget would be slashed, putting the U.S. one step closer to balancing the budget.
-Lower costs to the healthier population. Personally, I don't have any DUI's, accidents, and limited speeding tickets (knock on wood). Therefore, my insurance is fairly low. I made a decision to purchase a car within my price range, so I can afford my monthly payments. Similarly, I have few health problems and have made a decision not to have children, smoke, or engage in unhealthy habits, so therefore, I can afford to pay my health insurance.
-Personal accountability and responsibility for citizens. If all citizens had to pay for their health insurance, the way they do for auto insurance, perhaps people would make more responsible decisions. For example, if the government right now covered poor people's car insurance the way they do health insurance, a poor person could get a series of DUIs and tickets with few, if any, consequences. These people are having more and more children, who in turn, suck more lifeblood from the system. They use the ER as their own personal physician. Why? Because it's free. If something is free, most are going to take advantage of it.
-Freedom of choice for religious organizations. Let's suppose I start an insurance company. I'm not going to cover birth control. I'm not going to cover addiction rehabilitation. I'm not going to cover heart disease (shouldn't have eaten all those cheeseburgers over the years). I'm not going to cover flu shots (the flu is good for you- it builds your immune system). I'm not going to cover strep throat (that's what Jack Daniels, honey, and Hot Damn are for). Maybe that sounds crazy, but if that plan appealed to some people, then that could be their personal decision.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do believe the government has no place in matters like this. Only once the market has been deregulated and the government has ceased involvement, will consumers truly benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment