Saturday, February 23, 2008

Socialized Healthcare Scares Me

I have been trying to understand this debate since it started. I still cannot agree with this idea. There has to be a better ways to control the price of medicine through the market. I do agree because of the influx of illegal people living in the US our hospitals are being flood with uninsured people. People are using ER rooms as most use a general practitioner. There has to be other was then forcing people into a government run program. I think a government run program should be a last ditch effort in this country. Government controls to much the way it is. Also...this message to me conveys the American people are weak, failures in society, and need someone to take care of them. I don't think so and I think some of our American counterparts need a harsh reality check and a kick start to get them back on track. Throwing people into yet another governemtn program is not going to help people get ahead.

Here's an artical from the WSJ this morning:

WASHINGTON -- Among the sharpest policy disputes between Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is whether all Americans should be required to get health insurance, as Sen. Clinton proposes. She has said repeatedly that her plan is the only one that would cover everyone.

Now, after months on the defense, Sen. Obama is hitting back by emphasizing the downside of her policy: mandating insurance means penalties for those who fail to get it. His policy requires parents to insure their children, with penalties for those who don't, but his mandate is much less sweeping than the one proposed by Mrs. Clinton, which affects all Americans.

The Illinois senator has hit the point hard in fliers mailed to voters' homes and in a televised debate Thursday night. "In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Sen. Clinton has said that we will go after their wages," Mr. Obama said during the debate broadcast on CNN.

If Mrs. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, the New York senator is sure to hear similar points from the Republicans this fall.

It is a powerful argument that shows how dangerous it can be to give details about health reform. Making major change to the American health-care system involves trade-offs. In hopes of achieving universal coverage, both Mrs. Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards, who dropped out of the presidential race, issued plans that would require punishing people who fail to get insurance.

This dispute aside, the Democrats' health plans are remarkably similar. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama would let people keep the insurance they have. They both would offer new options, including a Medicare-like government-run plan, with subsidies based on income. Both would require large employers to provide coverage or help pay for it, and would require insurance companies to take all comers.

But the question of the mandate remains a great dividing point that the Clinton campaign has been trying to exploit since last year.

Her policy is based on a sense of shared responsibility, with employers, individuals and government all given new burdens. Further, absent a requirement to buy insurance, some, such as young, healthy people who don't think insurance is worth the cost, will fail to buy it and remain uninsured.

And healthy people, who are relatively inexpensive to cover, are needed in the insurance pool to balance out sick people, who are expensive to cover. If healthy people aren't in the pool, everyone with insurance pays a "hidden tax" to cover the uninsured when they can't pay their health-care bills, Mrs. Clinton said Thursday.

Her health-policy adviser, Chris Jennings, argues that hers is the responsible plan. "Hillary Clinton made the policy choice, not the political choice," he said.

Indeed, she holds the upper hand with many health-care-policy experts, who agree that a mandate is the only way to assure that everyone has health coverage, short of a government-run, single-payer system. They say that without a requirement, as many as 15 million Americans will remain uninsured.

Mr. Obama responds that people will buy insurance if it is affordable. Both candidates have a series of ideas for reducing health-care costs. Mr. Obama's plan takes a big step aimed at bringing down the price tag by shifting some costs of some of the most-expensive patients to the federal government.

"My belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it," he said. Once the cost comes down, he said, there will be few people left without insurance. If people are gaming the system and purposefully not buying coverage, he said, he will consider a requirement down the line.

The Clinton camp thinks his plan smacks of hypocrisy: if Mr. Obama is willing to punish parents who fail cover their kids, why not everyone else? And since he is promising to make insurance affordable, then why would a mandate be such a burden on Americans? They also note that Mr. Obama and his advisers have said they would be open to a mandate if one is needed.

Mr. Obama is pressing his case in fliers mailed to voter homes in Ohio and other states. "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it," the flier says. "Is that the best we can do for families struggling with high health care costs?"

The flier features a photo of a couple at their kitchen table -- an image that reminded some of the insurance industry's "Harry and Louise" ads that helped sink the plan Mrs. Clinton helped develop during her husband's presidency.

Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University who advised both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on their health plans, has said a mandate is important but its importance is being overstated. If the government works to automatically enroll people into a health-care system, he said, many will sign up even without a mandate.

Still, he said, Mrs. Clinton deserves credit for staking a position that is so politically risky. "A lot of things that the health-policy experts agree need to be done are ideas that, by themselves, are overwhelmingly not that popular and carry political risks."

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com

2 comments:

Goodboy Norman Featherstone said...

"My belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it."

Well duh. What a revelation. I am frightened that one of these two people is probably going to be our next President. But then again, McCain scares me too. 100 years in Iraq! Woot.

I am strongly against universal health care. Ever visited a VA hospital? I shudder to think that all hospitals could be like that. Scary.

Punish people who can't afford insurance? How? Jail time? Fines? They can't afford insurance - how are they going to pay fines? Also, is it really children that are taxing the health care system right now? I don't think so. Adults need the coverage. They are the ones who are in most need of emergency room services that are so costly. I could rant on and on about this all day long, but my last comment is regarding insuring people who are currently uninsurable. What about people with existing conditions that no insurance company will cover? Will they get fined for being uninsurable. I'm sorry, we can't treat your diabetes, so you're going to have to pay a fine.

The problem is with the insurance companies and the current cost of health care. This is where the candidates need to focus - health care reform - not a universal insurance plan. The root of the problem is in rising costs, not the average American's inability to pay those costs. Let's set aside our special interests and lobbyists that are paying for our campaign and really focus on the problem people. I hate politicians.

The Fun Park said...

Amen sister. Let’s work it out through the market not another government program.