Posts: 577
Threads: 293
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
0
Why health insurers welcome Obamaâs plan to tame them
Jacob Sullum | March 10, 2010
Listen to Audio Version (MP3)
"We allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country," President Obama declared on Monday. "We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people."
Yet Obama's plan to tame health insurers would boost their business, protect them from competition, and guarantee their profits, all at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. It is therefore not surprising that the insurance companies, while they object to the presidentâs rhetoric and quibble over some of the details, are happy to be domesticated. Here are five ways in which Obama would help insurers while pretending to fight them:
The individual mandate. What industry wouldn't welcome a law requiring everyone in the country to purchase its product? The insurers' only objection to this edictâwhich would force young, healthy people who donât want insurance to subsidize the care of older, sicker people who doâis that the penalties for failing to comply are not severe enough.
The employer mandate. Requiring businesses to buy medical coverage for their employees brings the insurers more conscripted customers. It also shores up a perverse system of employer-provided health insurance that insulates consumers from prices, limits their choices, and weakens competition.
Subsidies. Allocating taxpayer money to help individuals and small business buy medical coverage makes customers less price-sensitive, allowing insurers to charge more than they otherwise could.
Regulations. Obama wants to dictate the details of what he considers to be minimally acceptable medical coverage, including the size of deductibles and the extent of benefits. This policy, which forces people to buy pricier policies than they would choose on their own, is like decreeing that all Americans should buy a Nissan Altima with GPS, a sunroof, and leather seats, even if they would prefer a Hyundai Accent.
Limits on competition. Obama pays lip service to the idea of letting health insurers, like other insurers, compete for customers across state lines. But his minimum coverage requirements would undermine a major benefit of such competition: the ability to escape a particular state's restrictions on the policies insurers can offer.
If Obama's plan works as advertised, it will be a huge boon to insurers. As he himself notes, "they're going to have 30 million new customers" thanks to the government's mandates and subsidies.
To distract us from the favor he is doing for insurers, Obama claims to be getting tough with them by demanding that they take all comers and charge them all the same rates, without regard to health. While abolishing risk-based pricing contradicts a basic principle of the insurance business, the industry has to weigh the loss of that freedom against the gain of government-guaranteed revenue.
Despite his talk about reining in "excessive" premium hikes, Obama's plan commits him to keeping insurers financially sound so they can provide the coverage he is promising. Federal regulators, like their state counterparts, will find that "you can't separate the underlying solvency of companies from the rates they charge," as Wisconsinâs insurance commissioner recently told The New York Times. "From a consumer protection standpoint," Kansas' insurance commissioner agreed, "the most important thing we do is ensure the solvency of companies."
In essence, then, Obama's plan would use money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and policyholders to keep insurers healthy. He says this arrangement means "insurance companies would finally be held accountable to the American people."
The collectivist language is telling. I don't want insurance companies to be "accountable to the American people"; I want them to be accountable to me, as a consumer. That situation, which is also the best way to bring costs under control, can be accomplished only by promoting choice, increasing competition, and removing the barriers that prevent consumers from receiving and responding to price signals.
Insurers may prefer the security of Obama's domestication to the uncertainty of scrounging for customers in a free market. But why should we bear the cost of their care and feeding?
Posts: 268
Threads: 44
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
I am thrilled that we finally have a President who is placing the needs of REAL people FIRST.
He is doing what is decent, humane and proper for our country by sticking with his proposal
to pass REAL health care reform.
This idea first began with Theodore Roosevelt, health care FOR the American people. FDR
wanted to pass it, and had he lived longer, he would have..but at least he initiated Social Security.
Then LBJ initiated Medicare. Now President Obama is really doing his best for the very lives of the
American People.
When it all comes down to it, this debate is all about LIFE vs DEATH. Those who support our
President in this great undertakng stand with him and each other as life-affirmers.
Those who stand against him in every way, say NO to every proposal he makes yet can offer
no real significant ways to improve our bankrupting and our broken health care system, they
are life-negaters.
It is the public interest -vs- self-interest, it is decent "WE" -vs- the greedy MEs, it is about
the forces of LIFE -vs- the powers of DEATH.
It is a BATTLE ROYAL, and I am so proud to support our good and courageous President
in this good fight FOR LIFE !
Join me and tens of thousands of other American citiziens, call Congress and tell them
to PASS The President's Health Care Reform this coming week !
For us, that would be Congresman Mark Kirk to call and U S Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris! Or e-mail them ... go to
GOOGLE and type in their names, their official D C offices will appear and then hit the CONTACT link.
Posts: 577
Threads: 293
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
0
This blurb from our Speaker of the House, says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyV2JCU-T...r_embedded
Posts: 162
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.creators.com">www.creators.com</a><!-- w -->.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm">http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles ... ARight.htm</a><!-- m -->
Posts: 720
Threads: 93
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
WT Reader Wrote:I am thrilled that we finally have a President who is placing the needs of REAL people FIRST.
He is doing what is decent, humane and proper for our country by sticking with his proposal
to pass REAL health care reform.
This idea first began with Theodore Roosevelt, health care FOR the American people. FDR
wanted to pass it, and had he lived longer, he would have..but at least he initiated Social Security.
Then LBJ initiated Medicare. Now President Obama is really doing his best for the very lives of the
American People.
When it all comes down to it, this debate is all about LIFE vs DEATH. Those who support our
President in this great undertakng stand with him and each other as life-affirmers.
Those who stand against him in every way, say NO to every proposal he makes yet can offer
no real significant ways to improve our bankrupting and our broken health care system, they
are life-negaters.
It is the public interest -vs- self-interest, it is decent "WE" -vs- the greedy MEs, it is about
the forces of LIFE -vs- the powers of DEATH.
It is a BATTLE ROYAL, and I am so proud to support our good and courageous President
in this good fight FOR LIFE !
Join me and tens of thousands of other American citiziens, call Congress and tell them
to PASS The President's Health Care Reform this coming week !
For us, that would be Congresman Mark Kirk to call and U S Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris! Or e-mail them ... go to
GOOGLE and type in their names, their official D C offices will appear and then hit the CONTACT link. While it may truly be a matter of life and death, the death part only applies to a certain segment of our society. The wealthy have life, the poor are taken care of also, it's the poor guy who works and struggles, who has a few assets to his name, therefore doesn't qualify to be considered poor, that the term death applies to. The insurance companies seem to only want you as a customer if you are healthy. They practically exclude you for having a hangnail. The republicans seem to like it that way.
Posts: 720
Threads: 93
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
JazminH Wrote:A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
Is Health Care a Right?
Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.
True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.creators.com">http://www.creators.com</a><!-- m -->.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/IsHealthCareARight.htm">http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles ... ARight.htm</a><!-- m --> The above is a product of indoctrination and a good attempt to circumvent logic. People who do not drive cars pay for highways to be built. In a way I consider health care to be a right. The science and technology that it is built upon is endowed to us by those from the past who discovered and created it, all the way from Hippocrates. We are the rightful and intended recipients of that gift of humanity the same way that we are the benficiaries of language. Would it not be absurd to assert that we have no rights to language. The idea that such a thing is to be capitalized on is the real and true absurdity. When we begin to accept absurdity as truth, as in the above artice, we are in trouble.
Posts: 268
Threads: 44
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
ClassicalLib17 Wrote:This blurb from our Speaker of the House, says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyV2JCU-T...r_embedded
Laughable and out of context. Click this link below
and find the REAL FACTS about what is in the Health
Care Reform Bill:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting">http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting</a><!-- m -->
And this health care reform bill will pass, and the majority of
the American People will affirm IT.
This is the real fear of the life-negators and the PARTY of NO..
that The President will be a SUCCESS, all about politics, not about
"We, the People."
WELL, "WE, the PEOPLE" WILL PREVAIL in this good fight,
we absolutely WILL.
--- WT Reader
|
