Real Analysis

Something the networks refuse to do is analyze the fundamentals of the so-called healthcare reform bills that went down in flames last week. So I'm going to take my own shot here.

The question to ask is, why were the Democrats willing to bribe their way into this massive bill that they came so close to pushing through, even though it was beyond flawed?

They say that their objective was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to those who don't currently have it. Their widely reported justifications were based on the accusation that insurance companies will not sell to individuals with pre-existing conditions, then will routinely cancel the policies of individuals who are unfortunate enough to get sick. They go on to be outraged that insurance company executives are fat cats who siphon profits into their own pockets, partly on the backs of those customers they so callously reject.

All that is followed up with an emotionally-charged declaration that healthcare is a right, not a privilege!

Let me start with that last statement. The Bill of Rights doesn't say a word about healthcare. That declaration may sound noble to many, but if it's correct, then would it not follow that people of America also have a right to a decent home and 3 square meals a day? I'm guessing the same Democrats making this statement would answer that question "yes!"

But how can such things be rights? How can it be a right of any person to receive a house, plenty of food, and medical care, all of which presumably had to be provided by someone else, without compensating that provider in some form?

For any right to exist in a just society, how is it just to declare a right that essentially requires confiscating that good or service from someone else?

The essence of the Democrats' end goal of universal healthcare is just that; a system that confiscates goods and services from one citizen to pass on to another, while skimming a healthy percentage off the top for the government who oversees and enforces that transfer.

So to the other justifications for health insurance reform, let's deal with them individually:

Insurance companies should not make a profit from people's suffering. Sounds nice, until you consider the alternative. The Democrat alternative, as defined in their barely disguised incremental approach to ending private insurance in favor of government insurance, is certain to shift those profits into the pockets of the class of bureaucrats they put in place to administer this newer, "fairer" healthcare insurance plan.

They argue Medicare is very popular, so what's wrong with simply extending Medicare to everyone? At face value, I sort of like that idea too. If I could get insurance coverage through Medicare that allowed me to drop my outrageously expensive private health insurance plan, I'd be very happy to participate.

But I have to be realistic. Medicare's already bankrupt. They already collect about 3 percent of every dollar earned by every American, and it's not enough to cover the seniors already in the plan. They have already cut the Medicare reimbursement rates to the point where doctors and hospitals are treating seniors covered by the plan at a loss, which they must pass on to the rest of their private patients who are paying for those treatments.

So let's say everybody says, "Great, sign us all up for Medicare!". First, how much would the tax rate have to increase to cover all of us? Double? Triple? Quadruple? Would even that be enough? Then, when the doctors can no longer pay their bills because everyone's on Medicare and they can't pass costs on to other paying patients, they've already promised they will simply retire. Ultimately, we'll all have Medicare, but won't be able to find any health providers to treat us when we get sick. Because they will all have shut down from the system making it no longer economically feasible to continue.

So what about these evil insurance company practices? Yes, I have heard the stories of companies canceling policies as soon as their customer checks into the cancer treatment center. But I don't actually know anybody personally that has experienced this - do you?

And the little bit I know about contract law says that if you contract with an insurance company to reimburse medical costs, they must abide by the terms of that contract. So as a consumer, our first responsibility is to make sure there are no clauses in the fine print that allow the insurance company to dump you if you get sick. Then, if they try to do that, you have a case to sue them in court.

So maybe government can play a small role in this problem, to whatever extent it may exist, by simply passing a law that says insurance companies may not put such clauses into the fine print of their contracts, or at least that they must disclose those conditions to their customers before issuing a policy. Whatever this legislation might become, it is a far cry from what the Democrats tried to implement.

Fundamentally, I believe each of us has a responsibility to see to our own needs, whether housing, food, education, healthcare, etc. I also believe the healthcare system is in trouble today precisely because of government interference and an out-of-control tort system.

These days if you are employed, you most likely have a decent health insurance plan through your employer. The problem is the unemployed and the self-employed. The unemployed can't afford insurance, and the self-employed generally choose not to pay oppressive insurance rates for plans that don't pay until you exceed the high deductibles & co-pays.

If the government wants to reform the healthcare system, they should prioritize and create conditions that allow the citizens to force reform, rather than the big-brother approach so favored by our leftist Democrats.

1. Reform the Tort system. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for how to do this without abandoning protection for those who have truly been injured by malpractice.
2. Change the payment system. Change the system to have the citizens themselves pay for their services as rendered. We all should see and have to process the invoices, which will automatically make us more informed consumers. Insurance should be geared toward reimbursing us, not the providers.
3. Detach insurance from Employers. Make health insurance more like car insurance. We should be able to shop for and buy the policy we want in an open, competitive market. That way we don't lose our coverage after we leave an employer, and the self-employed are buying insurance the same way everyone else does.
4. Regulate, but open the market. The government can place reasonable regulations on insurance companies to make sure they act responsibly, but should also encourage companies to offer a wide range of policy options that fit individual customers' needs, and of course a pre-existing condition should affect an insurance purchaser no differently than an accident would affect a car insurance purchaser.

Too bad there isn't a single politician out there with anything close to these ideas.