Thursday, August 20, 2009

Liberal Voters Would Not Be Satisfied with True Government Health Insurance

This post builds off my previous post.

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that government health care as it is presently being pursued by the Obama administration would be an expensive proposition. Health insurance as it is presently constituted is expensive whether it's paid for by an employer, or a government. We can all agree on that.

There are a number of people uninsured in this country. The number differs depending on the source, but I've seen estimates between 12 and 44 million. The true number probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

We hear hyperbole in the main stream media about people dying out there because they can not get the life saving medical procedures they need. Making the big leap that this is true, instead of the government providing very expensive health insurance like our employers generally provide today, what would be the reaction of the left if the government provided cheaper catastrophic-only health insurance? I am not saying I support such a move, but it would be an interesting compromise. The plan would have a high deductible. Much like car insurance. The individual would be responsible for anything under say for example $3000. Insurance would cover anything after that number. The government could institute a tax deduction for the money spent under $3000. The government would not be involved in any medical decisions or end-of-life issues. The government would put the contract out to bid to existing private insurance companies.
There are a lot of advantages to this type of plan. This type of plan would be much less expensive than full government health insurance. It would cover catastrophic medical needs, but still require the individual to be responsible for their day-to-day health charges. It would also require people to pay attention to their health care costs and introduce market forces into the system, which would drive competition, which would in turn drive up service and drive down costs.

If you had no health insurance, wouldn't one think this kind of plan would be welcomed? Mama always said beggers can't be chosers, right? This would give people the assurance that they would not die or be saddled with high health care debt, while possibly not totally bankrupting the government. What would be the liberal voter reaction to such a compromise plan????

I suggest that the liberal voter would not be satisfied with such a plan! I portend that the liberal voter does not really want health insurance for the uninsured. The liberal voter does not appear to care about federal spending and the damage to our economy. The liberal voter does not want the responsibility for their health care. What the liberal voter truly wants is "free" health care. The liberal voter wants to get any prescription they want, go to the doctor whenever needed, and not have to pay a dime out-of-pocket. They want the so-called rich to pay for their trip to the doctor or pharmacy. They want free health care, not health insurance. The statists-socialists running our government today are all to happy to push for such an all-powerful, all-encompassing bureaucratic option.

As we all know, nothing works that way. Nothing is free. Everything has a cost.

The cost of the current Democratic health care plan will result in lower quality service and care, and will be incredibly expensive. The people know it, hence the public backlash we are witnessing in town hall meetings etc. all across the country. Reports of the death the American public as a powerful entity are greatly exaggerated!

No comments: