Health Care Courtesy of the Fourth Reich

Continuing our series of pointing out the flaws in Obama's Blueprint for Change, there's some pretty scary stuff about health insurance coverage here. Let me preface my criticisms by stating that I am more than superficially qualified to critique health care proposals. I've been without coverage due to assinine reasons (having had a non-malignant freckle removed from my arm 5 years prior made me "uninsurable" according to BCBS). I have paid both ridiculously high premiums & ridiculously expensive bills when I was without coverage.

I also have family members & friends who have been driven to bankruptcy (or the very brink) due to medical costs. I'm studying for an RN degree so have knowledge from the perspective of both a consumer & a health care professional. Perhaps most significant, I've had sole responsibility for all benefits at a small business for almost 10 years. This has led to an extensive education in the different types of insurance, premium levels, coverage inclusions/exclusions & much more. It has also allowed me to become intimately familiar with problems, obstacles & costs both from the employee's view & the employer's.

That being said, some of the most basic tenets of his plan are disapointing at best & sometimes frightening. For instance on page 6: "Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN because of illness or pre-existing conditions." By forcing insurers to cover people they would ordinarily decline, one of two things will happen: Either tax dollars will be spent subsidizing premiums for a select few while the rest of us continue to pay our own way OR the insurers will rape us all with even grossly higher premiums thanks to the government mandates. Most likely, both will happen to some degree.

"Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public
plan or purchase a private health care plan."

"National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and
make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

(3) Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

(4) Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents’ plans.

(5) Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve as a critical safety net."

So we have a plan that will expand Medicaid & SCHIP at the expense of taxpayers in addition to creating new options for young adults. On top of that, federal money will be spent to subsidize coverage for people in other plans in addition to the 3 mentioned above. Then on top of that, even more federal money will be spent to create a new bureaucracy (never a good thing) which will impose rules & regulations outside of the letter of the law by circumventing our existing system of creating federal regulations.

This bureaucracy will also infringe on the rights of business owners by defining what is a "meaningful" contribution & enforcing financial penalties. This is a half-step away from that same government agency deciding that middle-class taxpayers aren't doing enough to help the rest of the country make ends meet. Such a plan would open the door not only to socialized medicine & insurance in the US but also to the socialization of the insurance industry, private healthcare providers, all privately owned business in the nation & our tax money.

It isn't the government's place to force businesses to change their client base. Our tax money should not be spent infringing on the rights of private business owners, providers or healthcare instutions. Reform should come through tort laws & consolidation of services, not through federal laws & excessive spending of taxpayer money. First we need to recognize that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it if the plan of action is foolhardy. Then we also need to acknowledge that increasing bureaucracy is the opposite of efficiency, change, hope or accomplishment. Glaciers melt faster than bureaucracy works & global warming has nothing to do with it.

Finally, we should acknowledge that some states have already fantastic plans in place that show Obama's plan for the joke it is & these plans don't cost taxpayers a single cent. Massachusetts leads the nation in comprehensive, efficient, affordable blanket coverage for all but the Dems can't acknowledge the success of Romney's administration since it contradicts everything the Dems propose on this issue.

In MA, people both above & below the poverty level receive free coverage. A single person earning up to $30,000 and a family of 4 earning up to $60,000 are eligible for subsidy. The state has created a clearinghouse for insurers that drastically lowers administrative costs, allowing insurance companies to offer significantly reduced (read: reasonable, affordable) premiums. The clearinghouse works with residents & employers to offer single & group coverage on an income-sensitive sliding scale.

This keeps all freedoms intact without infringing on the rights of private business, healthcare providers or the backbone of our economy, the taxpayer. Rather than waste tax money, MA has "fixed" this complicated problem in their state without increasing spending or taxes. Romney proposes using it as a model for other states to create plans specific to their residents & leaving the federal government out of it entirely.

That seems like a win-win for everyone so why won't the Dems acknowledge this gem?

Who Decides?

I've been hearing a lot lately from critics of OTC sales of Plan B. People are complaining that it will reduce the “embarrassment” of purchasing this drug, thereby increasing use.

Personally, I’m much more comfortable dealing with professionals such as my doctor or a pharmacist than the clerk at the Circle K, so I don’t see where buying an OTC pill instead of a prescription lessens embarrassment.

But more importantly, if we as a society feel that women should be embarrassed to have sex, there are a lot of other things that we as a culture should shame people for doing.

Let’s start by refusing emergency medical care to anyone that injures themselves by driving under the influence. After all, we don’t want to send the message that incredibly irresponsible behavior lacks consequences.

And for those who use drugs, no more adrenaline shots to the heart after an OD. These people need to learn that there’s a price to pay for eschewing society’s boundaries.

We shouldn’t just pick on criminals, either. Sexually active women aren’t the only law-abiding culprits of societal coddling. Let’s stop treating diabetes in obese folks, since they’ve had more than enough warning that being a pig will kill them.

No more cancer treatments or lung transplants for smokers. No more liver transplants for drunks. If you break your neck bungee jumping, skydiving, riding a motorcycle or bicycle, too bad for you. You knew the risks.

How about those people that refuse to get routine preventive medical care? Should we refuse to treat late stage prostate cancer simply because an annual physical would have caught it years ago, saving millions of dollars in treatment cost?

Not getting a mammogram or PAP smear regularly is damn irresponsible. Shouldn’t we, as a society, ensure that these irresponsible jerks suffer the consequences for their actions?

From now on, let’s set a standard for who deserves any given medical treatment, be it an OTC pill or an organ transplant. A jury of your peers can determine if you “deserve” treatment based on whether or not you are responsible for bringing this “shame” upon yourself.