The New York Times on Saturday published an OP-ED piece titled Why We Need Health Care Reform by President Obama. In it Obama continued his assault on those evil insurance companies saying that "millions upon millions" of people "struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them". What he neglects to mention is that tens of millions of people have no problem with their insurance companies and more than 80% of people are happy with their health care (see CNN poll). He then goes on to tell the horror stories of a self-employed woman who cannot get health insurance because she has hepatitis C and a man who died because his insurance provider delayed his chemotherapy treatment. Again, he leaves out the countless stories of those people who do get health insurance and have received benefits and lived to tell about it. He also leaves out the statistics on cancer survival rates in the US versus countries with a single-payer system. How about telling some of the many horror stories that we hear coming from Canada and the UK? Of source, that would not sell the "change" that Obama is trying to push through. Demonizing the insurance companies is the current scare tactic that is being employed.
Obama goes on to point out four ways that "the reform we're proposing will provide more stability and security to every American". His first point: "First, if you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" is intellectually dishonest. That "affordable coverage" will be the government option (note that he does not refer to the "government option" in the entire piece). You will not have coverage if you move, change or lose your job unless you are on the government option – that's not stability or security, that's government getting involved in your health insurance. Real reform would include changing the tax code so that people had the same tax advantage as their employer when purchasing their own insurance coverage and opening up the insurance market so you could purchase insurance across state lines. This would be real stability and security but the Democrat's plans do not include any of this reform. It only includes a government option.
Obama's second and third points involve Medicare and Medicaid. He claims they will get hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from cutting waste and inefficiency. When has government ever cut waste and inefficiency? The terms waste and inefficiency go hand-in-hand with most people's thoughts of government but we're supposed to believe that more government will equate to saving money. He also gets a few shots in at those evil insurance companies by suggesting that by cutting some of the waste in Medicaid and Medicare "we'll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies" and "unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits". The insurance companies are not the evil ones here, the government bureaucrats wasting our tax dollars are the problem. More bureaucracy is not the answer. However, cutting the waste in Medicare and Medicaid would be a welcomed "reform" if you trust that the government is actually capable of such cuts.
Obama's last point is aimed directly at those evil insurers and holding them "accountable". He tells us about a study from 2007 where 12 million people were "discriminated against" by these evil insurance companies. He goes on to explain how their plans will require insurance companies to provide various services like routine checkups and preventive care. What Obama is missing is that this will only drive up the costs of our insurance premiums. One of the biggest reasons for our rising insurance premiums is the increasing number of mandates placed on our coverage by the government. The more the insurance companies have to cover the higher the premiums will be – it's simple.
This is reminiscent of one of the arguments used by liberals for mandating that everyone have health insurance coverage: car insurance. They argue that everyone has to have car insurance so what's so different about everyone being required to have health insurance? It's a good argument, except that not everyone has to have car insurance. Name me one ten year old that has car insurance. Driving is a privilege and in order to take part in that privilege you have to have insurance. But let's consider this example further. First, car insurance provides many options. You can pay a smaller premium by choosing higher deductibles or forgo certain coverage like collision. Health insurance does not have these options due to the coverage mandates that vary from state to state. Second, car insurance is intended to cover you when you get in an accident and have a need. It is not meant to provide coverage for "routine checkups". Can you imagine what your premiums would be if your insurance company paid for oil changes? What if people could get coverage after they had an accident? What would your premiums be then? Finally, there is a lizard that sells cheaper car insurance. For years if you lived in New Jersey you could not do business with the lizard because NJ mandated that companies sell all forms of insurance not just car (e.g. home, fire etc.). Since the lizard did not sell these other insurances they were not able to offer their cheaper insurance to NJ consumers. Eventually, the state lifted this mandate and NJ consumers are now saving money on car insurance – it's called competition. Maybe that would work for health insurance.
The president discusses all of the organizations that are "on board" with his plan. Unfortunately he is exaggerating the level of support for his policies in order to garner support. For example, he claims the AMA is on board, which they are. But the AMA only represents a small percentage of practicing physicians. Some physicians argue that "the AMA represents less than 1/3 of America's physicians and half of those are retired." That's not as much support as the statement infers. He also states that "we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year." Notice the careful use of words. Does the AARP support the policy of an agreement with the drug companies or Obama's overall policies on health care reform? In his New Hampshire town hall meeting Obama suggested "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." The only problem is that AARP released a statement after the town hall that said "While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate." The reality is that there are not as many people "on board" with his plans as he'd like you to believe.
In his closing paragraphs, President Obama tells us that "the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain". He then goes on to use the politics of fear by suggesting that "we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day" and maybe you should fear that you may be one of them. Most of those Americans are losing their health care because they are losing their jobs. We could stop these losses by cutting taxes on the companies that create jobs but instead we are considering a health care reform bill that will raise their taxes. Companies are scared to hire people because they do not know what the impact will be of this health care atrocity. Obama continues with the fear that "[p]remiums will continue to skyrocket" and the "deficit will continue to grow". Well, if you continue to increase the mandates for our insurance the premiums will continue to increase and the bills in Congress do just that. So, with or without this reform our insurance premiums will grow. As for the deficit, as long as the politicians continue to spend our money like there is no tomorrow, the deficit will continue to grow. When they stop spending money they do not have, our deficit will not only stop growing but will actually disappear.
The fear of the evil insurance companies had to be included because they "will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people." Of course, they won't continue to profit because that is what they are supposed to do; it must be because they "discriminate" (again, notice the wording). It's not that the insurance companies deny coverage because of policy or coverage limits. It's because they discriminate. So let's pass this health care "reform" and make those evil profiteers pay. While we're at it, let's make those evil money-making doctors pay, and the greedy drug companies and everyone else out there that tries to live the American dream and make a profit. Let's also forget that the reason we have the best health care in the world is because of the ability for innovative and motivated people to make money.
Obama ends with the thought that "[t]his is about America's future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life." He is right that it is about America's future and how we will look back years from now. Will we make the changes that we really need? Or will we allow more of our rights and freedoms to be taken away with the liberals' version of health insurance "reform"?
0 comments:
Post a Comment