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!

Healthcare Insurance We Have Now Is Not Insurance

The healthcare insurance debate rages on in the United States, with President Obama in the middle of the lion’s den…a place nobody belongs. He’s a statist and he just can’t help himself, but that’s a topic for a different day.

There have not been many posts on Liberty Alert of late. There are two reasons for that. One is business. The real life of a no-name blogger is definitely at odds with the blog. The second reason post have been sparse lately is that I want Liberty Alert to be a place for original thinking, not just retreads of the crap spewed by the main-stream media, and non-main stream talking heads. I’m not always successful at it, but I try not to be sucked into the trap of basing my opinions (and blog posts) on the points made and developed by others. I like to try to use my own original logic here. Again, I’m not always successful at it, but that’s the idea anyway. That does not mean that I can’t take ideas and learn from others. I just want to avoid repeating the babbling of others. This means that sometimes I’d rather write nothing at all, until I have something original in mind.

I’ve been doing some travel to the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico this past week. Although Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, it is not a state, and has a totally separate culture from the mainland. Therefore, it’s interesting to read some of the opinion pieces in the local newspapers to get a unique viewpoint on national matters, especially the current healthcare debate.

One letter-to-the-editor I read in a Puerto Rican newspaper raised an interesting point. The way we pay for healthcare is not insurance at all. We call it insurance, but it really is not. It’s closer to pre-paid healthcare than insurance.

This letter made me contemplate other insurances that we have. The most common insurance that nearly everybody uses is auto insurance. Think of the contrast between how we use auto insurance versus health insurance.
Auto insurance has a set premium based on how much of a risk you present. This premium can be raised or lowered based on the risk assessment of the insurance company. However, you have the freedom to shop around and switch at any time. With auto insurance, there is a deductible. The insurance is meant to cover catastrophic events, not everyday maintenance activities. The insurance company does not pay every time you enter the auto body shop. Does this mean you should stop doing maintenance like oil changes on your car? No, of course not. The driver is still responsible for the upkeep of their automobile. The incentive for the driver is to do the maintenance in order to keep their car running well longer.
When an accident occurs, the driver is free to address the issue as they please. They can take the money from the insurance company and leave the damage on the car, or they can use the money to pay for repairs at any garage or autobody shop of their choice.
In addition to insurance, most new cars come with warrantees. These warrantees cover unexpected mechanical breakdowns, but the driver is still responsible for general maintenance.
Contrast this insurance model to our current healthcare insurance model. In our current health insurance system, we expect insurance to cover every trip to the doctor. We expect to take no financial responsibility for our own healthcare. We have no concern toward cost (since insurance is paying for it), and we have restricted choice. In essence, we ask the insurance company to pay not only for accidents, but for every oil change, tire rotation, brake job, radiator repair, tune up, etc. regardless of our lifestyle choices and risk. This is not insurance. I’m not sure what one would call it, but insurance it is not.