I suppose that the concern appears valid: that MANDATING insurance might lead to increased taxes by requiring government subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance – and that this amounts to SOCIALISM – and loss of liberty. But I don’t think it’s a well-reasoned argument.
- Mandating insurance is Constitutional:
Under current proposals, you CAN REFUSE health insurance, but will be penalized by taxes – just as you can refuse to put energy efficient windows in your home.
The preamble to the Constitution reads: “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish … promote the general Welfare ….” The present system degrades the general welfare as described within.
Regulating and mandating social systems makes sense. We already REQUIRE drivers to have auto insurance. We already provide public education. We require adults to wear clothing in public. We mandate that all adults pay taxes, etc.
Q: What would be our national productivity if not for SOCIAL programs and infrastructure that provide shared opportunity: Our Federal drug review system, and our National highway system to name two examples?
Q: What would be the state of our union if we rationed education in this way: providing it only to families who could afford it?
- Not everyone who is presently without insurance will require subsidy – so if such reform were enacted a good many millions of Americans would be PAYING INTO the system, instead of getting a “free ride.”
Rough estimate: $ 300 x 12 months x 15 million x ??? Years = ??,???,??? That would contribute to reducing rates and paying for hospital services when received!
Insuring everyone will help to REDUCE insurance rates for those who have insurance now. Even the Insurance industry understands this basic concept!
Studies show that EVER RISING insurance premiums are a drag on our economy, preventing small businesses from creating new jobs. See http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/
- The present system encourages free rides because uninsured American families will receive emergency hospital care anyway, without paying for it.
- forcing hospitals into malpractice: as they subsidize the care of the uninsured by overcharging and sometimes over-treating and over-testing those of us who can still afford coverage.
- some our citizens – who could easily afford the monthly premiums – take bets for the purpose of saving money, knowing that if emergency care is needed they will probably receive it anyway.
Q: Will those who refuse insurance – based on notions of liberty, and fear of SOCIALISM - also sign waivers to decline emergency care?
- Rationing health care based on a family’s ability to pay is unethical and inconsistent with our responsibility to help others in need.
- Opposing insurance reform will contribute to, instead of stopping, the current trends – which are UNSUSTAINABLE:
1) The ever decreasing pool of insured American citizens, 2) forcing insurers (who continue to realize record profits) to raise rates continuously, 3) decreasing the pool further at an alarming rate.
Repeat 1 – 3 above, indefinitely.
- Rationing access to care by ability to pay is inconsistent with the “War on Cancer” – will not help present or future cancer survivors, or help to advance clinical research, which is poised for major advances.
- The acceptance of the current “system” – increasingly available only to the elite – lacks vision. For example, it increases the vulnerability of all of our citizens to medical emergencies, which are inevitable – such as future pandemics, and other natural and man-made disasters.
The unarticulated FEAR that “insuring the masses” will water down our medical care seems a half-truth at best. While shortages in primary care may exist in the short-term, this is a sad and short-sighted rationale for letting the system continue to spiral out of control.
- Despite repeated assertions to the contrary: the current reform proposals provide needed anti-monopolistic regulation of the insurance industry.
Proposals will NOT lead to a government takeover of the insurance OR health care system. Such regulation will INCREASE private competition and public choice.
Government-based regulation (as we see in the Drug review system) can be vital. Imagine if drugs could be marketed without clinical testing and unbiased independent regulatory review!
Q: Is it easier to change corporate or government insurance policies?
We can’t elect corporate executives … and corporate shareholders are not even theoretically beholding to the public interest.
Government regulations in a democratic country do not carry NEARLY the same risks as such regulation or services in a dictatorship – the recent Banking debacle shows that absence of government regulation can lead to economic catastrophe.
The SPREADING fear that reforming the insurance system will pave the way for SOCIALISM is not supported by evidence or common sense.
The public should be at least skeptical of such notions, which may be fostered by 1) profit motive (the insurance industry), 2) political ambition (partisanship), 3) misinformation, 4) media bias (to be employed by the media you are not in danger of losing your health care), 5) by untrained and self-appointed “experts,” and 6) conflict of interest in our political system (the lobbying advantages held by billion dollar corporations - probably to be even worse in future thanks to a regrettable Supreme Court decision).
Please, ask your representatives to at least adopt an open mind about the costs and harm of the present system, and the credibility of concerns about socialism. Call and write them today.
Thanks for listening.
KarlS