Social Issues Continued...
Health Care/Insurance (original post 2011 or earlier)
There has been much coverage of the government taking on healthcare "reform". Most of this is really talking about a way to reduce the cost of insurance (and their massive 3.9% profit margin. The goals of healthcare reform are not clearly stated.
Do they want to reduce total cost (that can be done in three main ways: increasing costs - pricing care out of the market, limiting or rationing care, and reducing inefficiencies and capitalizing on economies of scale)?
Do they want to increase coverage percent, another thinly veiled attempt at income redistribution? It is not responsible to cover everyone. Another question being why does the government think it can spend this money now when the country has such a large (soon to be crushing) debt?
Goals of healthcare: the government has proposed health care with an eye mainly on insuring the uninsured. Sure, some of the uninsured can be added but attempting to add all is foolish. Especially with a public option that will undercut private concerns. Not everyone can be employed and not everyone can have health insurance.
Most of the things i saw on health care i see are trying to spend nearly a trillion dollars to cover an additional 10-15% of the population. Sure, the raw numbers look huge, 30-50 million people, but when you consider the US is a country of 310 million people, that doesn't seem horrible (that amount being uninsured).
Some factions of the government want to force health insurance coverage. i am definitely not a fan of the government mandating that a consumer must purchase a service (even if it were privately or publicly provided).
My idea of health care reform is a little different. i want medical malpractice tort reform. Lawsuits, settlements and insurance costs against them are costly and have spelled the end of some private practice doctors. Furthermore, i want health insurance to be sold across state lines. Getting access to a larger base of customers can help diversify risk and potentially reduce premiums (through economies of scale).
There are health insurance companies that are being propped up by being shielded from competition. This isn't good for the populace. i also believe that there needs to be some consolidation in insurers that is being prevented by the state-by-state regulations. i want as much cost as possible (like overhead) to be taken out of the system (provider level, medicine and medical supply level - but never interfering with free market interactions). Also, the timing and interactions between insurers and medical providers needs to be better implemented.
This is an example of the government stating it wants to fix something when the current system is not broken (though it does have its problems and there is room for improvement in operations) in order to potentially control votes in the future.
In other words, seek market solutions to problems with as little government intervention as possible. Encourage innovation and efficiency, not bureaucracy. Afterall, a commercial service is not a right.
Government Dependence/Addiction
What is one of the biggest problems with government spending programs (other than irresponsibility and layers of bureaucracy)? Dependence. Spending programs are often started under the guise of a short-term fix to a specific social problem.
Unfortunately, government spending is kind of sticky (the Pringles way: once you pop, you can't stop). In other words, once a program (especially a social program) is enacted, cutting it becomes difficult - even if it has outlived its usefulness.
The risk of any government program is that people will depend on the program or alter their behavior because the government will somehow solve their problems/monetarily support them. We have seen this with welfare programs. Every government social program has an inherent dependency potential, though maybe that is the point.
i know this may sound jaded, but wouldn't it be in a particular party's best interest to have people depend on programs (as if they depend on your program they are more likely to have your vote - and any threat to that program becomes an existential threat to them). Of course, this is a failure condition of democracy (vote buying through the use of taxpayer dollars).
No comments:
Post a Comment