Young Poor & Angry Press

While it is undeniable that America has by far the best, and most technologically advanced health care system in the World, no one challenges the need for reform. On both sides of the political spectrum politicians and pundits acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand. On the one hand we have the Democratic Party going away from their roots, trying to get a “public option” through congress instead of the usual attempts at imposing a single payer system. On the other, we have the Republican Party, not really coming out with a viable, popular solution to the problem. A few Republicans have come out with good solid reform plans, but no one in the party is paying any attention, because they are too focused on stopping the

Democrat’s plan, rather than presenting their own to the American people. The current Democratic proposal of a “public option” which has been endorsed by the President sounds great from a podium. The Democrat’s propaganda machine tells people what they want to hear, and frankly it sounds great. The problem lies in what they don’t say. The biggest problem with a “public option” is that it will make it impossible for private insurance companies to compete. Whether individuals purchase their own insurance, or whether it is employer provided, individuals will slowly be forced into this “public option”, giving the government a de-facto monopoly over the health insurance industry, therefore controlling healthcare in this country. When an entity is created to compete, it takes on the risk to fail. As we have found out with Social Security, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, the government does not allow its entities to fail. So if this program goes bankrupt, or runs out of voluntary contributors, it will result in consequent tax increases on a major sector of the population, thus creating a program much like Social Security, which would never survive were it not for forced contribution.

When the government seeks to promote competition by entering into a private market, it creates a competing entity with the unfair advantage of being subsidized by the tax-payer. This unfair financial advantage over the competition would make it extremely hard for the private sector to compete. Furthermore, the “public option” will not be able to survive on its own premiums, as the President claims, at least not while they keep the “hardship” clause in the program. This is going to create a system in which the non-contributor receives the same service as the “voluntary” contributor, which would cause any smart “voluntary” contributor to stop contributing. Another problem with trusting the “public option” in this case, is that many Democrats still claim that this is the first step in the path to a single payer system the likes of the England’s pathetically underfunded single payer system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E)

The proponents of this “public option” announced that “the hospitals” have agreed to certain conditions, and claimed that this will save the government $150 billion, by having “the hospitals” take on this financial commitment. First does anyone think that these hospitals are going to take a financial loss? They cannot go to their shareholders and tell them that they are going to help the government and that for a while; they are going to give up $155 billion in profits. These hospitals will either raise their rates on the private policy holders, or they are going to make cuts, either on staff, or by rationing services. Now, does anyone really think that this money will actually be saved? When the government claims that it will save money, it really means that it will transfer it somewhere else. Whether they use it to increase Pell Grants, or increase funding to protect national parks, this money will not be saved, it will be transferred, from one federal department, to another. If the government were really saving that money, it would use it for the only purpose that the government should use any saved money: Pay down the sky rocketing national debt or decreasing the ever increasing budget deficit.

A conservative proposal would spark more competition in the market by allowing individuals to purchase their health insurance across state lines, thus breaking up state insurance monopolies, not by bringing in big brother as a player/coach in the insurance game. The government has never sparked competition, nor been successful, in any of its ventures into the private sector; just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If social security became voluntary, and therefore a competitor in the retirement securities market, social security would die, instantly, because every contributor would opt out. Another way to help reform the healthcare system would be to enact tort reform. Today doctors pay anywhere from $4,000 to $55,000 a year for malpractice insurance, and if you think that reducing this cost would not reduce the cost of healthcare, well, you need to study economics. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) came out with his own Health care proposal which accomplishes all the goals that Democrats and Republicans agree must be accomplished and get’s the government back in the right track towards financial discipline. (http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=0db98529-0230-3564-0e4b-fe84bdb1971b).

So I ask the question, why is this plan not good enough for the President? Does it not grant enough control to the government? Does it put too much responsibility in the hands of the individual? The difference between Conservatives and Liberals on this issue is not the endgame. The great difference is the role of government in the endgame. It would be so simple to give the American individual more choice in healthcare without getting the government in the middle of it. It is so easy to reform the system and bring cost down. Why would we create yet another colossal and arcane federal social program, when there are three already out there that do not work, we cannot pay for, and are in dire need of reform?
There are many ways to reform the system. The real question is, how can the system be reformed in a way that is compatible with the American ideals of freedom and choice? A public option might give the illusion that it is simply adding one more choice to a market that needs more competition. However, what the market needs is not a choice that will cripple all the others, but an aggressive de-regulation effort in the part of the federal government, which will enable the already over-regulated healthcare industry to again become concerned with the needs of the consumer, and not the financially arduous trial lawyer mafia, or the subsidizing of Medicare, Medicaid, and millions of illegal immigrants.