That they are meeting in secret is appalling (but not surprising). But this part is rather disturbing:
“While there was some diversity of views,” it said, “the sense of the room is that an individual obligation to purchase insurance should be part of reform if that obligation is coupled with effective mechanisms to make coverage meaningful and affordable.”
Why should there be an individual obligation to purchase health insurance? You might argue that the uninsured are a burden on the system and you would be correct. But that's a problem because hospitals must take people. In addition, Medicare/Medicaid pay only a small fraction of the total cost for those not on private insurance. It's a problem of collectivism, not healthcare.
And what if I don't want insurance and am willing to pay out-of-pocket? Not only is it forbidden, “There seems to be a sense of the room that some form of tax penalty is an effective means to enforce such an obligation, though only on those for whom affordable coverage is available,” said the memorandum, prepared by David C. Bowen, a neurobiologist who is director of the health staff at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Are you sure this is what you want? Seriously, is it worth being strong-armed? This is giving up fundamental liberty for security. We will deserve (and get) neither.
2 comments:
For your solution to work, we would have to be willing to return to the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, with poor people kicked out of the hospital to die in the street. By the same logic, utilities should disconnect deadbeat customers in the winter time and let them freeze to death.
I don't believe in either/or. The only healthcare system worse than what we have now is a system run by those kind, caring, compassionate people who bring you the IRS and DMV.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but this ain't it.When I go through the pros and cons of the plan outlined in the article, I come up with more cons. Way more.
Post a Comment