Health care is worth paying for. . .
October 13, 2009
The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on their version of health care reform today and it looks like the bill will pass. Price Waterhouse Coopers released a report suggesting that the average family’s premium would increase by $4,000 under the Finance Committee’s plan. I asked myself, if we could provide health insurance to 91% of Americans would I be willing to pay an additional $4,000 per year? The easy answer is yes.
But would YOU be willing to pay $4,000 per year? The only thing I am certain of is that while fixing our existing system may save us money, the cost of providing government mandated/provided health insurance will far exceed the savings. I think every living breathing person outside of Washington would agree with me. There is no free lunch – everything has a price. If we want to provide health insurance for 100% of Americans it is going to cost the rest of us (i.e. the people with money). To refocus the debate each of us needs to think about how much we are willing to contribute to solve this problem. How much is reasonable? 10% of your income? The median household income in the US around $50,000 ($10,000 for taxes, $10,000 for family health insurance, $5,000 for 91% Universal Coverage = $25,000 for everything else). Is 10% too much? Some of my friends on the Left would argue that those with more wealth should pay a higher percentage allowing for those with less wealth to pay less (i.e. nothing). What happened to shared responsibility? Should we all pay our fair share?
The problem with the $4,000 cost per family is that it only covers 91% of American families. What about the other 9% of Americans, why don’t they get to have health insurance? What makes us more deserving of health insurance? Isn’t health insurance a right? Why doesn’t Senator Baucus care about those Americans who need health insurance the most? Does he want them to die and to die fast? Aren’t you sick of the debate? I am. None of these guys have a workable plan. In each case, including the Baucus bill, our leaders have made compromises that either make their plan too expensive or ineffective. Health care reform is like a Rubik’s cube – get one side fixed and the rest get mixed up. The irony is that 100% of Americans think our health insurance system is screwed up. It is literally a total mess. The problem is that we don’t agree on how to fix it. About half of us think the government should take it over and offer it to everyone and the other half thinks the government is the problem with the current system. I hope I sit somewhere in the middle. I think government has a role to play – a very important role – to provide the necessary regulations to provide some order to the chaos that free markets create. I believe incremental changes are called for – not a massive overhaul. I even have a plan, how about you? Any ideas how to fix this mess?
A
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Alex,
It is very important that we conservatives retain an honest philosophy, that we must exercise our belief in natural rights uniformly, and that we should apply our doctrine consistently. If your philosophy is pure and conformed, perhaps you could explain the glaring contradictions embedded in your thoughts on health insurance.
The Muse Plan for Healthcare Reform implies you have reserved faith in the free market system, evidenced by statements like “Competition will equal lower prices for consumers” and “We could save billions by allowing consumers more choice in the policies they purchase.”
However, you pulled a 180 on us and jumped left on the spectrum with this gem: “I think government has a role to play – a very important role – to provide the necessary regulations to provide some order to the chaos that free markets create.”
Health insurance companies are not allowed to sell products that uninsured people want to buy. An over regulated market has produced fewer and larger companies with no incentive for competition. Insurance lobbyists conspire with our politicians, while those same companies conspire with hospitals and clinics.
When did it become acceptable in the U.S. that some men may force their product onto all other men with the force of law?
If you admit that interstate insurance policies would promote competition, you subconsciously admit that states will compete to deregulate in order to attract those supposedly evil insurance companies. So is the free market truly the source of this “chaos”?
Comment by Trevor Renfroe — October 14, 2009 @ 10:09 am
You know the PWC report was a sham bought and paid for by insurance companies, right? The horribleness of the Baucus plan is probably something else we can all agree on.
Comment by nostrum — October 15, 2009 @ 8:22 pm