As pointed out at The Bumbling Genius: An All Too Common Answer, those pushing so hard for health care reform typically just point out problems with the current system and jump to the conclusion that whatever Obama is proposing is going to fix the problems and not cause any new ones.
Anybody see the problems with that?
If the current system is too expensive, how will total costs go down by eliminating competition?
If the current system is too expensive, what data do they have to suggest that government ownership will reduce costs?
If the current system isn’t working well, what data do they have to suggest that government ownership will improve effectiveness? Anybody been to the DMV lately? How about Walter Reed Memorial Hospital?
If the proposed system is so swell, why won’t the proponents be subject to it?
If this issue is so important that it transcends politics, why isn’t it important enough for legislators and Obama to actually read the Bill?
Does the tone from Obama sound familiar to the stimulus bill debacle that wasted untold amounts of money? You know, the “this is too important to be bi-partisan about or debate” language?
Why are people acting surprised that abortions will be covered and funded by taxpayers? The pro-abortionists already use the euphemism “reproductive health” to describe abortions. Of course they expect you to pay for the abortions of others.
The system has flaws, to be sure, but people get health care already. Most of the uninsured are illegal aliens and those who don’t want to pay for insurance.
Will illegal aliens be covered in the new plan? Why not pay for health care for the whole world and not just those who enter our country illegally?
Steve Forbes has some outstanding ideas on how to truly reduce costs and improve care. Think about these:
Conventional Lasik eye surgery costs a third of what it did ten years ago. And there has been virtually no inflation in the prices of cosmetic surgery, even though there have been enormous technological advances, and the demand for these procedures has increased sixfold since the early 1990s.
Special hospital facilities in India, Thailand, Singapore and elsewhere that engage in medical ”tourism” have infection rates a fraction of those found in most U.S. hospitals. These positive results are driven by the fact that patients write the checks and are thus fully conscious of the costs, as well as by the fact that providers are under pressure to make their offerings more enticing and affordable.
Here are some helpful and constructive measures that can move us to a more genuinely free-enterprise health care system.
–Equalize the tax treatment of individuals and businesses. If the company you work for doesn’t provide insurance or you don’t like the plan offered, you are forced to try to buy a policy with aftertax dollars. If an individual wishes or needs to buy health insurance on his own, why shouldn’t he get a refund tax credit of, say, $4,000–and a family, $8,000?
–Allow consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines. Today it’s illegal for someone in Chicago to buy a health insurance policy that someone living in New York City can buy.
–Encourage the use of Health Savings Accounts. That way consumers–not government bureaucrats or employers–would control the purse strings, or at least a portion of them.
–Permit small businesses to form pools so they can increase their pricing leverage with insurers.
–Remove the obstacles that prevent entrepreneurs from setting up new clinics or hospitals. A number of states make this extremely difficult by demanding that such entrepreneurs obtain a certificate of need. In fact, in some jurisdictions hospitals must get permission to make major capital purchases.
Genuine free-market reforms in health care will slash the number of the uninsured and lead to the same kinds of innovations and efficiencies that are experienced in most of the rest of the economy.