The Passage of Healthcare Reform
By PhilosoGuy at 23 March, 2010, 7:52 pm
Whenever a piece of serious legislation passes, it is important to consider two things: who is benefitting and what is the stock market doing? Both of these are subjective at best, but can shed some light on the reality of a bill, and its motives. The first part of this question is answered quite easily: Insurance companies have now been given 32 million people that MUST pay for insurance. That’s like making everyone in the country have to buy a new TV or spend money in a certain way. This, of course, leads greater profits and the second part of the question: What is the stock market doing? Yesterday and today, the stock market, and particularly the insurance companies’ stock values, all increased. If this bill were really designed to limit unfair practices and out-of-control insurance costs (the curbing of which would lower the value of the insurance companies’ profits and stock value), how could it possibly lead to the increase of the insurance companies’ stock values? The simple answer is that this bill is sure to raise the cost of healthcare in the United States and increase insurance company profits, which the explicitly the opposite outcome of what Obama and Pelosi have been claiming the bill will do. Either their bill is a serious mistake, or even worse, a lie.
Furthermore, especially with a bill this expansive, it is important to consider its constitutionality. Is the government within its scope of power to mandate that people purchase healthcare? Surely, people must obey traffic laws because they can endanger other drivers. Freedom of speech only goes so far: you can’t scream “Fire!” in a movie theater. But, if you choose not to purchase healthcare, who are you endangering? The government, in my opinion, is overstepping the scope of its power and has passed an unconstitutional law.
PhilosoGuy.com is not meant for everyone. Its purpose is to foster intelligent conversation of many different topics. Feel free to interact and respond to the posts. However, please make sure that you don't waste anyone's time with what you say. This site is meant for smart people and if it offends you then you don't belong here.
The uninsured don’t go see the doctor because they cannot afford to. This makes them wait till they are sicker, at which point their costs will drastically increase, but they will have little choice in the matter. They’ll lose what money they have paying bills, often having to borrow from friends and family. They and those around them end up much worse off, and they themselves are actually endangered (should you leave it to a person to decide if they’re so sick as to *require* medical attention?). So I propose that there is a clear indication of who gets endangered under the current system and how this new system will improve things.
On the other hand, you’ll have an increase in the number of people who end up in the doctor’s waiting room because they have the sniffles. Is a bunch of annoyance for many people (increased wait time to see a doctor) worth the reduction in the destruction of lives/families for a few? If that few is over 1 million does that make it seem more practical? What numbers are required to make it matter?
But hey, I live in Canada. When it’s serious, you get bumped in line in the emergency room. When it’s not serious, but you’re impatient, you go to a private clinic and pay some. I spent 4 days in the hospital with my wife when our first kid was born and we asked for a private room. The only cost was a partial amount for the private room that ended up at around $30/night after insurance. Everything else was covered without us even needing to fill out paperwork, including the epidural and the unplanned Cesarean. I pay a lot more taxes than an American, but I have much less to be worried about in life.
And a last note. There’s still a bunch that could be improved. The discussed limits to financial liability would go a long way to reducing prices, and probably change the culture of medical practitioners significantly.