Health Care Reform Thus Far
By Montage for sub-scribe Magazine
Health care in America is unquestionably in need of some reform, but the situation is not as
dire as the liberal democrats would have you believe. The time spent thus far on health care reform
has been an utter waste of time and has unnecessarily created divisiveness within the government
and the people of this nation.
The ensuing debate has actually taken me back to the patriotic fervor created by the
republicans and FOX News with the passage of the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq. If you
opposed the language of the unread bill or the reasons for turning a foreign country upside-down,
then you were labeled unpatriotic or un-American. The health care debate has been similarly
framed by liberal democrats, MSNBC politicos, and dull comediennes, except now we are labeled
tea baggers and racists. I can’t speak for everyone, but it is not the taxes that opponents of
nationalized health care are rallying against. Rather, it is the overreaching of powers by the
government into yet another private aspect of our lives. Perhaps we’ll look back on this folly one
day and ask ourselves how we could have approached health care reform with a more diplomatic
and realistic goal in mind... or perhaps even debate the core issues.
One must understand what insurance is before meaningful reform can begin. Insurance is a
model based on risk. Risk is important because of the debate over pre-existing conditions. The
question is: Should health insurance companies be allowed to follow the insurance model of risk,
called adverse selection, or should they be forced by the government to accept applicants without
discriminating based on a pre-existing condition? Let me draw on a parallel that no insurer would
choose to accept. State Farm would not be eager to write a policy on a house that is presently on
fire. If the company were to adopt this policy as a business strategy, it would have the effect of
discouraging homeowners from insuring their house against fire damage until it is really needed.
Moreover, this strategy would make homeowners less conscientious for the care of their house,
knowing coverage is available at anytime. Ultimately, fire insurance premiums would necessarily
increase as a result of the costs incurred from an increasing number of damage claims from these
inattentive homeowners. Before premiums increase, one could only hope that a radical fringe in the
insurance pool protested against this unsound business strategy. Without accounting for the risk of
its members, an insurance company is no longer offering insurance, but rather something else—I
don’t even know what. But as you can see, without the risk element insurance doesn’t make sense
to both the insurance company and its members.
Real health insurance reform is a far step away unless insurance regulators remove
crippling state mandates. These mandates require that insurance companies provide coverage for
almost everything health-related into individual health plans. This coverage can include breast and
prostate cancer screenings, mammograms, treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, acupuncture, and
chiropractic therapy. For states that mandate these services in individual health plans, the insured
individual is paying for it every month, even when it’s not being used. I plan on paying for my
prostate screening in about 30 years; I don't need that benefit at 24, yet I am paying for it right now.
Nor am I susceptible to drug and alcohol abuse, so I shouldn't be forced to pay every month for
treatment that I'm not using. And don't get me started on acupuncture.
In effect, the state mandates have scored into our brains a sense of entitlement—that health
insurance can and should be used for all-things health-related. Yet, we don’t show our car insurance
to the clerk at the gas station to pay for a fill-up. We don’t present homeowners insurance to the
gardener. Thus, one of the major core issues is that the insured are relying too often and too much
on their health insurance, consuming with it non-emergency services such as regular office visits
and treatments for the common cold. This has the observable effect of raising premiums on
everyone, not because of the unrestrained health insurance industry, but because of the basic
economic model of supply and demand.
With state mandates, expanding coverage to the sick will not have the effect of controlling
health care costs, nor will it reduce health insurance premiums. We should start meaningful
reformation by discussing what is known to reduce the cost of health care for everyone and lower
health insurance premiums. This can be achieved by convincing state insurance regulators to
remove the mandates, because coverage for anything should be optional and should cost more as
one adds more coverage.
Health care and health insurance reform of any kind should have a component in which
individuals take on a more active role in their life by being responsible for a greater share of their
health care costs. People take better precautions in life knowing they have to take a greater, if not
total, responsibility for any outcomes. The incentive must be there for reform to work.