Join The Healthcare Debate Before It’s Too Late
I’ve written extensively on the subject of healthcare reform over the past 15 months, and some of the most intense debates on this blog have taken place in the comments of healthcare related posts. As President Obama prepares for what is likely to be the most significant battle of his political career, it seems like an opportune moment to revisit some of those older articles to see if my previous arguments hold up to the current political reality. While some of the numbers and statistics have changed as a result of the economic downturn, I believe that my basic arguments remain sound. If you’re interested in the subject of healthcare reform, I encourage you to check out some of these articles and join the debate.
In one of my earliest posts, I examined the arguments of those who insist that healthcare is a basic human right. Proponents of this position tend to misunderstand the difference between rights and needs, and to base their arguments on compassion rather than logic. In Healthcare Is Not A Right, I point out that a right cannot exist as long as it creates a corresponding obligation that someone else is required to satisfy. We cannot simply declare that healthcare is a right without trampling the rights of our healthcare providers.
The key to any successful healthcare reform effort will be the development of effective cost control measures. Politicians are reluctant to discuss rationing of medical services, but no nation can provide universal coverage without some sort of rationing mechanism in place. Revisiting The Oregon Plan: The Future Of Healthcare In America examines the issue of rationing, and takes a look at one of the most efficient methods devised to date for the allocation of health services. The original Oregon Plan was reviled by critics for its technocratic approach, but it will not be possible to provide universal coverage unless we adopt a rational system for the allocation of medical resources.
Conventional wisdom tells us the problem with our current system is that too many Americans lack health insurance. What If No One Had Health Insurance examines the question from the opposite perspective and suggests a return to a traditional fee for service model. Modern health plans encourage over-consumption of health services, and provide no logical connection between the price we pay and the services we receive. The most effective way to reduce healthcare costs may be to restore a direct relationship between consumers and healthcare providers.
The bankruptcy of Chrysler and General Motors has focused national attention on the crushing cost burden of employer provided health benefits. While many credit GM with introducing the concept of employer provided healthcare, it is becoming increasingly obvious that a new approach is needed if American companies are going to remain competitive in the global marketplace. With workers changing jobs more frequently, UAW Workers Really Do Make $71.00 Per Hour re-examines the logic of tying health and retirement benefits to our fleeting relationships with employers.
Healthcare reform has the potential to transform our government and our economy more dramatically than anything since the passage of the Social Security Act in 1937. There is no doubt that our current system is badly broken, but we owe it ourselves as a nation to engage in an informed debate rather than basing our positions on partisan talking points. No one knows what form it will take, but major reform of some type is almost certainly inevitable. If we allow the debate to be dominated by lobbyists and partisan operatives, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when the final solution is worse than the current problem. I encourage you to join the conversation here and make your voice heard before it’s too late.
Healthcare Related Posts
Revisiting The Oregon Plan: The Future Of Healthcare In America
What If No One Had Health Insurance
UAW Workers Really Do Make $71.00 Per Hour
Obama Is Wrong To Declare Healthcare A Right
Is Obama’s Plan A Backdoor Attempt At Single Payer Healthcare
Why do people accept the erroneous proposition that employees in the US have, so far, been choosing their own health insurance companies? My experience is that an employer chooses a health insurance plan to which the employees have to subscribe. In this system, I suspect that insurance companies can bribe those who are empowered to select health insurance plans and thus insure that all the employees will be their customers.
Why is there so much talk against a public option? Have people lost sight of the meaning of their words? If it is an option, then it is not and cannot be mandatory. People can choose it or choose something else. If it is–as the very words of those who oppose it indicate–, an option–and not a mandate, then how do they dare brand it as a mandate and pretend that it would prevent market competition?
It seems to me that if there is a public option, then will employees be really able to choose their own health insurance plans because, then, the employer will no longer be able to, in essence, say to his employee: “This is own group plan, join it or else you won’t be insured.”
It IS an option but the system is being set up so you have a choice, but cannot choose “none” without facing fines and possible imprisonment.
So while one could potentially be capable of fully “choosing” their options they’re being FORCED to part with income no matter what… and THAT is what has me so peeved.
i just wanna thank you for sharing your this information and your site or blog this is simple but nice article I