As the Obama health care plan slowly receives more and more scrutiny, it is becoming clear that the underlying goal is not to correct the problem in the current health care system, but rather to further expand government's reach. I thought this was fairly elementary. Conservatives wish to reduce the size of government, while liberals wish to expand it. These are basic to each ideology.
Investor's Business Daily's August 29, 2007 editorial, using Census Bureau data, effectively refutes the notion that "47 million" Americans lack health insurance. After calculating the total number as just under 45 million, they break the numbers down. Let's see where we end up:
Let me get this straight: since between 5.7-12% of Americans do not have health insurance, we are going to trash the entire system, and let government take it over? This will save costs? Governments never have an incentive to cut costs; they can always a) raise taxes, or b) print more money. Private enterprise, by definition, must watch its costs.
This is yet another example of the liberal Obama Administration trying to control Americans' lives. Those in government know better for the American people than the American people do. This is also an example of the liberal child-like view of the world: since a tiny minority do not have all that the overwhelming majority do, we will take away that which the majority has. Then all may share in the negatives of the system, instead of the vast majority of us (that is right - not all of us) sharing in the positives of the system. Make no mistake - when it is government versus private enterprise, in the long run, government wins, for the reason noted above.
Does this mean I think that the current system is working? No, I do not. But the solution is not to destroy the system already in place. We need to tinker with it. Then again, candidate Obama never disguised his intentions. He told us on a campaign stop in Missouri that he was going to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."
And fundamentally transform the United States of America he is doing.
Investor's Business Daily's August 29, 2007 editorial, using Census Bureau data, effectively refutes the notion that "47 million" Americans lack health insurance. After calculating the total number as just under 45 million, they break the numbers down. Let's see where we end up:
- 10.231 million illegal aliens - Surely they should not receive government-provided health insurance, being illegal.
- 9.283 million with income above $75,000 - They cannot afford health insurance? Surely you jest.
- 8.459 million with income between $50,000-$74,999 - They could also probably pay for their own health insurance.
Let me get this straight: since between 5.7-12% of Americans do not have health insurance, we are going to trash the entire system, and let government take it over? This will save costs? Governments never have an incentive to cut costs; they can always a) raise taxes, or b) print more money. Private enterprise, by definition, must watch its costs.
This is yet another example of the liberal Obama Administration trying to control Americans' lives. Those in government know better for the American people than the American people do. This is also an example of the liberal child-like view of the world: since a tiny minority do not have all that the overwhelming majority do, we will take away that which the majority has. Then all may share in the negatives of the system, instead of the vast majority of us (that is right - not all of us) sharing in the positives of the system. Make no mistake - when it is government versus private enterprise, in the long run, government wins, for the reason noted above.
Does this mean I think that the current system is working? No, I do not. But the solution is not to destroy the system already in place. We need to tinker with it. Then again, candidate Obama never disguised his intentions. He told us on a campaign stop in Missouri that he was going to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."
And fundamentally transform the United States of America he is doing.
According to http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml, the average annual premium for health insurance for a family of 4 in 2008 was $16,100. Still think it's affordable for those 50-75K earners?
ReplyDeleteFace it, the existing system based on private insurance exists to make a profit as it's raison d'etre, not to promote health. That's the fundamental problem that cannot be fixed by tinkering.
And illegal aliens are people too, and part of our economy, like it or not, and I think we should ensure that their basic human needs are provided somehow. There, I've said it!
cyberdov - Thank you for reading and commenting.
ReplyDelete1) As I said in my posting, those earning between $50-$75K could "probably" afford health insurance. I will accept your argument that they cannot. Nevertheless, my overall point remains, namely, that for 8.5% of Americans (and non-Americans) not having health *insurance* (NOT health *care*), President Obama is ready to trash the entire system. Is it working well now? No. But the answer is not to start from scratch. Do you really want to have Canada's and Britain's health system? Do you want a bureaucrat deciding what treatment you or a loved one should receive?
2) You say that private insurance exists to make a profit, not to promote health. Why is it wrong to want to make a profit? Are there any industries which you would permit to make a profit? Tourism? Film? Sports? Pharmaceuticals? Why should insurance companies not also make a profit? The free market has a way of evening things out. If people see that one insurance company in particular is putting profits ahead of its patients, they'll switch. Either the company will get the message and change their ways, or they'll go out of business.
3) Who suggested that illegal aliens are not "people"? Certainly not I. They are part of our economy, agreed. But in general, they send their money back to their home countries; they do not put it into the American economy. If you want to pay for health insurance for illegal aliens, that is fine with me, but don't force *me* to pay for it. Find your own outlet for helping them. As I am sure you know, their "basic human needs" *are* being met. They are not turned away from emergency rooms. In fact, they take services away from American citizens, native-born and legal immigrant alike. What would you say to the *legal* immigrant who followed the rules?
1. Government health insurance systems in western countries work better than the US one. Period. So, yes, I do want that over what we have now.
ReplyDelete2. Insurance companies are certainly entitled to make profits. However this is not the best way to provide for a healthy society. As a society, we should offer proper health care to all members. I don't begrudge the insurance companies their profits, however I do not think this is the way we as a society should provide health care, as it has failed too many people. If they can provide insurance for people in such a way that we as a society are satisfied, then no problem, and they should definitely make profits on that!
Don't forget that few people choose their health insurance directly, as for some reason we have stupidly linked health insurance to employment.
3. Yes I do expect *you* to pay for illegal immigrants' health care. I suppose that you also don't want to pay for their kids to go to public school either, right? IMHO this is a worthwhile thing for the US.
Cyberdov -
ReplyDelete1) Please define "work," as in, "Government health insurance systems in Western countries work better than the US one." I am not being difficult, but I need to make sure we are using the same terms to determine success.
2) We do offer proper health *care* to all members, just not proper health *insurance*. No one is turned away from an ER. Where do we draw the line at what is to be covered by public funding? Teeth whitening? Hip replacement? In a government-run system, there is no way that everyone will be able to get the same quality care that the comparatively fewer get now. There are 2 options, as I see it: 1) the overall quality of care will go down for all, as doctors will not work as hard, nor will they specialize as much, since they know their wages will be set by the government, or 2) we will have rationing. I do not see any other possibilities.
3a) What is the incentive for immigrants to follow the rules? (Please do not respond with, "The rules are unfair." Perhaps. OK, definitely. Then change the rules.) As long as we are at it, why not give them automatic citizenship, if they can make it across the Rio Grande? Where do we draw the line?
3b) Correct, I do not want to pay for their kids' public school education. Why is this worthwhile for the United States? Would you want your kids' school resources being used on illegals? Is there no penalty we can impose for those who *break the law* to enter this country?
4) Serious question: is there a purpose for national borders? Or do you support a Lennon-esque/*Imagine*-esque world?