Thursday, March 25, 2010

Health Care II

What do I think should have been done?

What do I think can be done if and when we repeal this garbage legislation?

First and foremost, the solution should not be government based. As in most economic-based problems and initiatives, government needs to get out of the way. It’s just a speed bump whose size depends on how badly your elected leaders wish to meddle in your affairs. Regulate, by all means, and protect the little guy. That’s fine. We have more than enough laws currently on the books that are not enforced. But the answer cannot be centered about the government.

So what can be done?

Since I find this whole issue tiresome but feel obligated to comment in light of yesterday’s post, let me just list three items I’ve heard and read about that make intuitive and reasonable sense to me.

1) Allow consumers to buy health insurance over state lines. From what I understand, this is one of the main reasons auto insurance is so competitive and thus relatively cheaply priced. Also, not subject to crazy State mandates.

2) Allow consumers to pick the particulars of their insurance policy. If you don’t expect to have gender reassignment surgery, why pay for it? If you don’t expect to need mental health treatment, why pay for it? If you’re a single man, why be forced to have pregnancy coverage? You get the idea.

3) Put caps on punitive damages for cases brought by ambulance chasers. Maybe establish some type of “loser pays” caveat to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Many of which are settled out of court because it’s cheaper, but it only raises everyone’s costs in the long term.

There. That’s it. What’s the downside of these three points, exactly? Why not implement them? Surely premiums would go down, resulting in affordable health care for individuals and families and for employers to offer their workers. That’s the goal, isn’t it?

Isn’t it?

The solution is consumer-driven free-market capitalism. Sure, there will be abuses, so that’s why the government takes the role of police officer, making sure everyone plays nice. It does not become the main player. Just open up any Economics 101 text book and read about monopolies. That’s exactly what Obamacare is directed toward: government monopoly. If you don’t think so, I ask you to address my twenty points in yesterday’s post. I challenge you to convince me differently.


(Thought experiment: Consider any founding father – Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, Washington – and ask yourself, “Would this man prefer Obamacare or a free-market capitalist solution to the health care crisis?” I would love to have a journalist with a spine and a full set of balls ask the President this question, and enjoy watching him hem and haw and filibuster and enthusiastically go off on tangents and, finally, get exasperated over the Mean Question and play the victim card … )

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

There is one major flaw in your thesis. You are assuming that the political class wants to enact effective legislation that actually works. A subflaw is the premise that Obama actually cares about the forefathers.

The ultimate goal of this legislation is CONTROL and POWER. The expansion of government and consolidation of power over the masses. Sound familiar? It should. Ronald Reagan (not George H.W. Bush) defeated it 21 years ago.

At some point, enough people will wake up and take this country back from the treasonous political class. Can this be accomplished at the ballot box? I really don't know.

At any rate look for the following in the not-too-distant future:

Cap and Tax legislation - control the energy we are allowed to use and how much.

Financial Control - legislation already passed by the House that allows the Secretary of the Treasury to takeover any company deemed "too big too fail" where he can fire management, set salaries, and/or liquidate assets destroying equity.

Immigration Reform - Think about the Hyenas in The Lion King when Scar took over the Pride.

Scary shit.

Uncle

LE said...

Yes, I am aware of the flaws, if you ascribe to BHO the worst of nefarious intentions.

The thing that bothers me is to what degree are you correct in your (and many others') take on the situation. I guess I am a little bit scared that what you and many others are saying is true. It's kinda like, "How can that possibly happen here, in America?"

The other thing that bothers me is, if your take is completely accurate, how willingly and enthusiastically so many are to go down this road. I can't believe so many people are that stupid.

Tomorrow I'm gonna finish with a fuller explanation of the general malaise (forgive a Carterism) I, along with many others, I suppose, am feeling.

Anonymous said...

Based on his past and present associations, I do ascribe nefarious intentions to Obama. And I believe the intent is to destroy "by whatever means necessary" (Malcolm X. Shabazz) your grandfather's America. What better way than to spend it into oblivion. This level of spending cannot be sustained in a free-market economy. And he knows it.

Uncle