“What I do know, however, is that until we separate out the healthcare debate into its individual organic components, we cannot have any realistic solutions.”
As Congress once again decides to do nothing in regards to the healthcare vote, I am left wondering why it seems so hard to have an honest conversation about what they are attempting to do. The Republicans are playing the same game that the Democrats did—minimal exposure to the plan with even less discussion about it. No wonder the Republicans cannot pass a bill; it is another case of “you have to pass the bill to see what is in it.”
I think that one of the biggest complications about the healthcare debate comes down to how we want to define healthcare. Insurance is nothing other than gambling at the corporate level. When someone gets insurance, whether it is car insurance, home insurance, or health insurance, the company insuring them looks at all the risks associated with the insurance they are getting. Once they know the risks, they plug them into immense algorithms to determine what the odds are of the person needing some sort of care. They then determine how much this would likely cost them and what the cost sharing would be when spread out among the pool of all their customers. Granted, this is ridiculously simplified, but in the end it all comes down to a gamble.
Here is the problem. By definition, pre-existing conditions cannot be covered by insurance. Why, you may ask? Basically, if you have a pre-existing condition, there is no gamble. The costs associated with that person’s care are a given, not a possibility. Someone with cancer is going to have to go through expensive and thorough care.
I am not implying that people simply be left without care. However, trying to combine everything into one single healthcare discussion is absurd. The easiest way to look at this would be to see it through the lens of car insurance. You insure your car in case something unforeseen happens. Once you get into an accident, it is too late to call and get coverage. Insurance only applies to what happens after you get the coverage.
So, what do we do with those individuals who have pre-existing conditions? That is a difficult question, and unfortunately not one that I have the competency to answer. What I do know, however, is that until we separate out the healthcare debate into its individual organic components, we cannot have any realistic solutions.
Why is there such a fear from our elected officials to come to the public openly and discuss healthcare? I am openly hostile toward the liberal mindset, especially when it comes to a single-payer healthcare system. Every time someone explains to me how great socialized medicine is, I ask why it is that the rich and powerful come to America when they get seriously sick. Why is it that our hospitals are so much better than the hospitals in Canada, for example? If that does not hit home, then I go to the case that has gotten such widespread news coverage over the last several years. See, in America, we actually do have a single-payer healthcare system—one that has existed for 206 years. It is called the veterans affairs hospitals.
This is where we are headed in this country. There simply are not enough doctors to care for our veterans. So when the government puts the pressure on to ensure all veterans are seen in a timely manner, they create secret wait lists and lie to the public and our government. Is it really that hard to envision this same level of care if the government decides to own the entirety of the healthcare apparatus?
Most importantly, why does the government believe that they can efficiently run the healthcare system?
Yet even with that stated, I believe that the left needs to be part of this discussion. I also believe that the discussion needs to be free from vitriol and accusations. This may be something impossible for both sides, and we the people will be the ones to suffer.
Here is the discussion I am wanting to hear from our elected leaders.
- How much influence do the insurance lobbyists have over the current congressional healthcare plans—both Obamacare and the Obamacare “Lite” version being pushed by Republicans? I think it is about time that we have an open and honest discussion on how involved lobbyists are within the political system. Once we draw back that curtain, I have no doubt we will see things that would turn the most ardent of ideologs.
- What steps can be taken to help with lowering the overall costs of healthcare? I have heard several things mentioned that seem to pass the common sense test with me. For example, why can’t Congress utilize the interstate commerce clause to allow insurance companies to compete across the entire country? This helped to lower car insurance; how would that differ from the health industry? Also, why can’t we mandate that doctors’ offices and hospitals allow customers to price shop? This means that they should be able to give us a fair breakdown of what the costs for their services are before they provide for us. When you need a new roof, do you go off the first offer you get, or do you actually shop around?
- What can be done about the price of prescription medication? This will be one of those very contentious areas. I am a firm believer in capitalism and that it is the profit from these medications that allow further research to be conducted to discover new medications. However, I also believe that the drug companies play price games within the United States. By overcharging our citizens, it allows the rest of the world to set price limitations. There has to be a way to fairly and justly tackle this issue.
- How do we fix the malpractice insurance issue? According to Trusted Choice, 6.4 billion was spent on medical malpractice insurance in 2000. One can only imagine what the costs are 17 years later. In fact, according to the same company, “5% of doctors carry 54% of all medical malpractice claims.” This means that over half of all claims are against only 5% of those doctors who practice. There needs to be a system in place to deal expeditiously and fairly with the medical insurance issues so that consumers do not have the costs of outrageously expensive insurance passed on to us.
- Most importantly, why does the government believe that they can efficiently run the healthcare system? This one I would really love to have explained to me in great detail. I spent 20 years in the army, and even they wasted money to a degree that I felt was borderline criminal. Every August it was the same deal—Division would call the Brigades who would call the Battalions who would call the Companies, all screaming that we needed to spend money before the end of the fiscal year. As a platoon leader in an artillery unit, I was all about spending the money so I could take my guys into the field and shoot some rounds for training. This was when I had it explained to me how we could only use this money on office items, or supplies, or anything other than what I really wanted. I had never before realized that not all money is created equal. If the military is put under that pressure, so is every other facet of government.
If we are going to fix our healthcare system, we need honesty from all sides. Left and right, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican all need to speak honestly and openly without trying to squeak out better political positioning. I would agree with anyone who is openly laughing at such an idea—this is clearly a bridge too far for such patriotic Americans
