More on health care reform
Although there are 1,300 competing providers of health insurance, the Obama administration says that there needs to be a government funded, single payer option. But does health care need radical restructuring at all? George Will says no and provides some facts:
Although 70 percent of insured Americans rate their health care arrangements good or excellent, radical reform of health care is supposedly necessary because there are 45.7 million uninsured. That number is, however, a “snapshot” of a nation in which more than 20 million working Americans change jobs every year. Many of them are briefly uninsured between jobs. If all the uninsured were assembled for a group photograph, and six months later the then-uninsured were assembled for another photograph, about half the people in the photos would be different.
Almost 39 percent of the uninsured are in five states — Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, all of which are entry points for immigrants. About 21 percent — 9.7 million — of the uninsured are not citizens. Up to 14 million are eligible for existing government programs — Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans’ benefits, etc. — but have not enrolled. And 9.1 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and could purchase insurance. Those last two cohorts are more than half of the 45.7 million.
Insuring the perhaps 20 million persons who are protractedly uninsured because they cannot afford insurance is conceptually simple: Give them money — (refundable) tax credits or debit cards (which have replaced food stamps) loaded with a particular value. This would produce people who are more empowered than dependent. Unfortunately, advocates of a government option consider that a defect.
The fact that the New York Times felt it necessary to cook the books in its recent poll about health care suggests that the fervor on this issue is synthetic.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
From men in Oregon and Texas, respectively:
“Could you please start by explaining why the rest of the civilized world can afford universal health care and we, living in the ‘richest country in the world,’ cannot? Until this is clarified, I don’t believe anyone that claims universal health care is too expensive for us. Rather I am convinced that anyone who opposes universal health care with a public option is simply defending the parasitic health insurance industry out of self-interest or ignorance. ”
“Face it, the free market failed in providing affordable health care to everybody, that’s why we’re in a crisis. Greed and lack of competition brought it down. The only way to cut costs is to get rid of the middlemen. 30 years ago medical coverage used to be a non-profit enterprise and it seemed to work. Having employers providing health benefits is silly in this day and age when the workforce is more mobile, is changing jobs all the time, is being outsourced, and is laid off all the time. Losing a job is not the ideal time to lose your health coverage. It’s a life and death matter for your family if your boss is in a bad mood.”
June 24th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
We are the richest nation in the world because we have not relied on government to provide most services. Kinda like asking daddy: “If we are so rich, how come you work all the time.” Look up the statistics and you will see that state run health care in other countries if far inferior to ours in terms of wait time and delivery of procedures. I am a cancer survivor who required an organ transplant fast, that cost $500,000 to my insurance company. No delays, no refusals or attempts to restrict what I needed My rates didn’t go up and I did not ever have my insurance coverage in danger. Under any socialized medical scheme I would now be dead from the wait time. So yea, I’m against state health care out of “self-interest” or self-preservation more accurately.
It will be too expensive in lives and suffering, not money, hell we can borrow all the money we need right? Additionally, the relatively free market in the U.S. is the worlds breeding ground for new life-saving medicines and procedures. Other countries’ health care systems are the parasites depending on us to create what they then use. Once we are socialized who will move medicine forward, because nobody else is doing anywhere near the innovation we are. The telling fact is that people come to the US for better medical care, not the other way around.
There are problems, but they are small compared to the ones that will result from Obamacare. Remember, everyone in the U.S. gets treated, we just aren’t all insured. Most not because they can’t be, but because they won’t pay even though they can. According to the governments own estimates only 10 million more will get coverage, but 300 million will be put into a far worse system. Again, everyone get treated now. I know you guys think you know what your talking about, but you don’t.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Having access to affordable health care coverage as costs rise, is a key issue for many Americans right now and should be Congress’ top priority. Friends of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports alternatives for individual health coverage. Learn more about some of the proposals and sign a petition at http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/takeaction/index.cfm?ID=40 .
June 26th, 2009 at 2:40 am
There is no limit to what I would buy with other people’s money. We can have good health care, or we can have cheap health care. You get to choose one.