Thoughts on the health care debate
Late September UPDATE: Apparently quite a few Americans believe as I do. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 78% support the idea of allowing all Americans the option of purchasing the same health plan that Congress enjoys. So with support for the current incarnation of the health care “reform” at 41% approval, the question you must ask yourself is why Congress keeps pushing a plan on a populace that clearly doesn’t support the effort. I maintain that the answer lies in the concept of a “scheme of control” and fundamental loss of individual liberty.
——
Few days go by that I’m not drawn into a conversation relating to the health care debate. And today, I got an email from a friend and attorney asking my thoughts on the subject. Politically, he and I are generally diametrically opposed, but he is a great guy with a sharp and inquisitive mind. We laugh a lot when we’re together. I consider it my honor to spar with him.
His position: [It] “seems to me the big issue that has been alluded to but not really spoken expressly is shifting the health economy from a finance and profit based model to a care based model. The reliance on insurance companies and their place in the financial sector is what has to be addressed, as well as the fact that the consumer is not choosing the provider.”
I share with you now, my complete response:
For the sake of brevity, I think the President could go a long way to “ensure choice and competition”, by the adoption of a one-page bill: one that would give the general public access to the 300 or so insurance options that the federal government employees currently enjoy. The positives should be immediately recognizable: complete portability, affordability, lack of a employer-mandated solution, no waiting period for pre-existing conditions, etc. Some great progressive ends, wouldn’t you agree?
If paying for the insurance is still an issue for some, a solution like the Earned Income Tax Credit might be appropriate- in which the federal government, either by direct payment to the provider or via the 1040 form, can help subsidize the expense. Don’t misunderstand me, I am concerned about the constitutionality of these programs, but I’m also a realist.
I am also aware of the “creeping incrementalism” social programs generally exhibit, and think there are reasonable concerns over the increasing cost of the social compact of 3 generations ago, one which has not kept up with medical advancements. In short, my opinion rests on the following posit: there can be no social programs if we’re bankrupt.
Further, I have grave issues with what amounts to “generational theft”, as I see it as immoral and unethical. It does not matter how much our government requires, it is never enough. I agree with the progressives in one specific way: a revolution is occurring and cultural battle-lines drawn. I’m not suggesting that the revolution will be one of violence, but it certainly is being televised!
Hope I haven’t offended, I’m merely relaying the truth as I see it. You deserve nothing less. I would appreciate your candid thoughts. It’s only through rigorous examination of our positions can we be certain of their value.