Our health is the foundation for our very lives, and this
discussion can get emotional rather quickly. I would like to take a
macro-view of the situation and cover a few aspects from a logical
standpoint.
First, I think we can all agree that people on all sides of
the discussion are pro-health. Arguing against health-care legislation does
not mean that anyone is anti-health. Any law affecting how we take care of
ourselves and affecting our relationships with our doctors deserves very
close scrutiny. We should also look at the role of government in health
care.
It seems to me that the the laws being proposed in the House
and Senate are confused between health care and health insurance. I want to
make sure we acknowledge the difference between the two. Health care
involves eating right, living right, and minimal interference with the
amazing natural systems that came with the bodies we inhabit. Health care
also involves prevention, treatment, and curing of ailments. We may also
need repair of any damage that comes our way. This is where your doctor,
diet, and you work together to maximize your vitality.
Health insurance, though, is a service we may (for now) elect
to purchase or not purchase. Health insurance is a money-handling system. It
is a method to build a cash reserve to cover costs when those costs come
along. We may pay a certain dollar amount into a pool on a regular basis. If
we are 100% healthy and never incur a cost, that money is available to cover
costs incurred by someone else. If, however, something major happens to us,
we should be able to draw from that reserve to cover the cost of care. This
may be where we get to the real heart of the matter.
Money is a great motivator. Nobody wants to have less than he
or she already has. This applies to insurance companies as well. If they
find themselves paying out more than they take in, they have no choice but
to raise premiums or cut off payments. Further, a publicly-traded insurance
company has a duty to maximize shareholder return. Even non-profits have
costs to cover, including executive salaries. A government-subsidized plan
has the creepy advantage of being able to pay and pay with no threat of the
government going out of business. Unfortunately, money coming from nowhere
for the government plan is still either a debt that we have to pay back
somehow or an erosion of the U.S. dollar (which destroys the value of our
paychecks, cash-on-hand, and retirement funds).
How should government fit into all of this, anyway? I say the
role of government in health care is to enforce contracts, prevent
state-to-state squabbles, and make sure everybody plays fair. The
legislation being discussed, though, is an extreme overreach. For a few
discussion points, I will refer to the health article in the Denver Post,
November 22, 2009, page 24A. The Senate bill "would require most people to
carry health coverage." This is an example of the confusion between health
care and health insurance. Having the best possible insurance plan is no
guarantee that you will be healthy or receive the best health care.
Likewise, having no insurance coverage does not automatically mean that you
will be unhealthy.
The real red flag for me, though, is this sentence referring
to Senator Harry Reid appeasing Senator Mary Landrieu, "He added a Medicaid
clause worth up to $300 million for Landrieu's home state." This tells me
that our representatives are not all that concerned with the health of the
American people, but desperate to get something--anything--passed under the
name of "health."
-(back)-
