Misuse of language, accidental or otherwise, is one of the difficulties when trying to address complex issues. The suggestion by the immediate past governor of Alaska of future ‘death panels’ in any of the health-care bills now in Congress is an example of this. The use of the word ‘gouging’ when referring to health-care policy insurance premiums is another. To accept that the term was used appropriately is to presume that the premiums are in some way extorted or swindled from the insured, or that the insurance companies deceptively overcharge.
As these companies have been regulated by Federal & State oversight bodies for over a century, one must conclude that either the claim that they are gouging is false, or that there is, as was once claimed a “Vast right-wing conspiracy" (used then in defense of a President during a sex scandal), but this time to hide or disguise inordinately large profits from these health insurance premiums. While government bodies can be distressing ineffective, I find it difficult to accept a hundred-year conspiracy theory without evidence, hence the parenthetical aside.
As for the comment “If ‘regulators’ of any industries were doing their jobs, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we're in now”, I find it passing strange that this would come from an advocate of a new multi-billion dollar a year Federal Entitlement program. If ‘the regulators’ are part of the problem (as claimed above), then why should we expect that adding an enormous additional program would cause anything but more of these problems? This new program would be a Federal health program with millions of participants. Medicaid, another Federal health program with millions of participants has been described in this thread as “it took an infuriatingly long time to get accepted,” and “Medicaid plan B has its drawbacks, some due to extensive red tape.” This is hardly what I consider to be a ringing endorsement of the precursor of a potential future. I would have thought that we would want fewer, not more problems as the fruits of our efforts.
For those who, for some reason still cling to the notion that the health insurance policies available in the U.S. represent some sort of “’free market’ plan of health-care”, let me again remind them that this industry has been regulated for more than a century. A regulated market is not a free market. It is foolish to think it is.
Finally, for those who think that any change to the status quo will be a change for the worse, let me remind them that there are many Americans who would like to secure health-care coverage, but cannot. The recent election has put these hopes in play. The President wants to help them get that coverage. He also wants to not break the bank while doing so. This is a real challenge.
There are many different ways that health-care can be provided. Loulabelle gave
a pleasantly candid assessment of one. Oldfart referenced an
alternative from Australia.
Senator Baucus presented a plan last week which seems to be closest so far to accomplishing the goals described by the President.
The current debate about health-care reform is in part a debate about death, which is why it evokes such fear. Reformers say that objections are largely based on misunderstanding, fuelled by scaremongering. They have a point. I think they miss the point that a bigger problem is that most Americans have pretty good health insurance and no idea how much it costs. Taxpayers foot the bill for the old. Most workers with employer-provided health insurance think that their employer is paying for it, when in fact it is part of their wages.
The system is riddled with waste. That is pretty well documented. Yet most Americans feel little urge to make it more efficient. If you already have coverage, there is little incentive to the individual to seek efficiencies.
Of course many people feel insecure about the impending health-care changes! Few Americans have a clear idea how this great change will affect them. This should hardly come as a surprise, as even quite basic details are undecided. The uninsured have the most to gain, but they are only 15% of the population. Everyone else has something to lose. Many Americans do not trust the government to do anything much, let alone make decisions about life and death.