socialized healthcare implications, reality, and solutions

http://calenfretts.com/2009/07/22/socialized-healthcare-implications-reality-...

http://billmaps.com/billmap/111/h/3200/americas-affordable-health-choices-act...

in President Obamas latest weekly address (watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg), he basically claims that insurance companies are not standing up to their end of the deal and paying for certain medicines/surgeries/care that they are obligated to. I contend that, if this is the case, why not hold them liable in court, as we do in every other sector? for example, if a dealer sells me a new car that breaks the next day, and they dont uphold the warranty, should I expect the government to fix it for free? no, I would take the company to court so that they must uphold their contract. the health industry should be no different. its important to note that the courts must actually impel the company to fulfill their obligation companies breaking the law should be fined accordingly until it either bankrupts them or they start behaving. if the courts do not do this, the onus is on them, and they must be reformed but it should not lead us to lean on The State to fill the gap.

on the other hand, if the reason that insurance companies dont pay for certain medicines/surgeries/etc is that they are NOT obligated to, then they are running their business as they should just as a car insurance company would not be contractually obligated to pay for a home that was destroyed. therefore, the individual is responsible for knowing what their insurance plan does and does not cover, and then deciding whether they wish to continue paying for that plan.

now, since I suspect that many times the reason insurance companies dont pay for certain things is because they are NOT obligated to, socialized (single payer) healthcare does an interesting thing it passes that obligation on to you, me, and other taxpayers. it comes to your house and says, hey Calen this man needs care he cant afford - so youre going to pay for it. thats right, cough up the money! whats that? you dont want to pay for him? hows prison sound! whats that? you dont want to go to prison? BANG. YOURE DEAD.

of course that sounds dramatic, but in a nutshell, thats how it actually works. my point is this: accountability and responsibility should be on the individual needing care (or their family if need be, or charities, or the Church), but not on The State, which is really just the rest of the taxpaying People. one citizen should never feel entitled to another citizens property, and when you look at socialized healthcare (and Medicare/Medicaid) in a cut and dry sense, thats exactly what you have.

a lot of people argue that hey, many people have a pre-existing condition and cant get health insurance now. we can equate this to buying a car and driving it around uninsured for a few years. finally you get in an accident, and youre stuck with the bill. you could try to get insurance on the car at this point, but good luck finding a company to take you up on that! insurance is not supposed to be this thing that people run to when they need healthcare and it magically hands out medicine to them. it is a hedge against your odds of eventually needing it you pay in when youre healthy and it pays out when youre sick.

now, the only logical way to afford socialized healthcare is to tax the People (or borrow and increase the debt, or print money, both of which are hidden taxes). neither of these is desired, or, at this point, affordable. the solution is to keep The States hands totally off of the healthcare industry (other than to enforce contracts, as stated above). when this happens, the People who are for using their taxes to help the poor can instead donate the couple hundred dollars to a charity (or individual) of their choice, if they so choose. in this way, we put accountability and responsibility on the People (where it belongs), we preserve choice, and we endorse freedom of contract, the strongest base of a free Republic.

If you protect a man from folly, you will soon have a nation of fools.
- William Penn

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• health care
• healthcare
• insurance
• Obama
• single payer
• socialized

[Frettsy]

we have not seen a truly free market in a century or two, but if we returned to one, costs would have no choice but to return to normal levels (this is why insurance companies lobby for MORE regulations - more taxpayer money for them). I have read the article on Lee Einer before, and certainly, corporate corruption is despicable - I am no "fan" of corporations per se. let me remind you that any individual is free to start their own insurance company

[Frettsy]

should the existing options not fulfill the needs of the public (ah, capitalism), AND, no individual is forced into any contract with any insurance company (YET). let me also remind you that your solution is to take power from one group of greedy men and give it to another group of (not greedy?) politicians. I would like to return fire a suggestion to read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, if you have not already.

[Frettsy]

it is a brilliant example of how we must never rely on corporations nor government, as both are ruled by greedy, powerful, and corrupt men. the responsibility of the individual is infinitely more important than the responsibility of the state. this is key to the health of our Republic.

[raulrodri602]

Your Hot!



[lerock1000]

@jsantos22 -Thats great, Sir, and for those that have no other option, that would be acceptable. What is not acceptable is forcing all people to be subject to what the government provides or severely restricts through legislation. The restrictions being proposed would make our private healthcare system, in essense, government healthcare. I wish you the best.

[josephdupont]

Mandatory Health Insurance is uncontitutional! Obama lied.. he was elected on a lie. he said that he was not for mandatory health insurance.

[Frettsy]

as well as to rob people of their property. a co-op plan would make the most sense to me, however, NOT a state-run one. people should be free to voluntarily enter any co-op (across state lines) and do business with any insurance companies they please. the state does not need to be involved in order for this to be effective (quite the opposite in fact), there are numerous non-public nonprofits. this is why the answer is not MORE government, but less.

[Frettsy]

now, if the courts do not lawfully enforce the contract, then they are at fault, and the problem is not with the healthcare system but with the inability of the insurance companies to be held accountable to the individual. if on the other hand the courts DO uphold the contracts, then the fault is on the individual for not fully understanding the contract they willfully signed. creating a government safety net serves only to accelerate the latter circumstance,

[Frettsy]

I apologize for just getting around to replying, YouTube never notified me there were new comments. the problem I have with your logic is that it takes all responsibility away from the courts. if the contract between the individual and the insurance company stated that the insurance could be terminated due to such a circumstance, the individual should have taken the responsibility of a) being informed and b) meeting any preexisting stipulations so this situation could not lawfully arise.

[jsantos22]

May I suggest that you read up on Mr. Lee Einer and what he was hired by health insurance companies to do.