What’s the Rush?
During his stop in Grand Junction, CO, President Obama made the best argument against rushing health care reform:
“Health care is really hard. This is not easy. I’m a reasonably dedicated student to this issue. I’ve got a lot of really smart people around me who’ve been working on this for months now,” he said. “There is no perfect painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem, gives everybody health care for free. There isn’t. I wish there was.”
If it’s such a difficult issue, shouldn’t we slow down and get it right the first time? If it’s so difficult, shouldn’t we have all sides having input into what the final legislation should look like?
People get it that the government option can’t increase the number of people covered while reducing costs and without rationing. Jonah Goldberg’s written a perfect explanation on why it won’t work:
Imagine you’re in charge of bringing pie to a company picnic. You’re planning to provide dessert for 100 people. Then, your boss says you need to hand out pie to 150. Fine, you say, I’ll make more pies. But, oh no!, you can’t because you’ve also been told costs must go down. OK, then you can cut slices of the existing pies smaller so everyone can have a piece. Wait! You can’t do that either because you’re not allowed to ration (i.e., give less to more).
According to Obama, the health-care pie will be sliced into more pieces, of equal or greater size than available now, for less money, all because government is so much better than the private sector at managing large projects.
Let’s ask a simple question: If you aren’t allowed to change how benefits are delivered, how can you cover more people without increasing cost or rationing care?
Here’s the thing: I know it’s possible if health care consumers are allowed greater flexibility with less government intrusion because it’s currently being done. A friend of mine operates a chiropractic clinic. My friend only accepts payments directly from the consumer. Health insurance plans are rejected because of the red tape.
Another way to increase the consumer’s flexibility is to eliminate the vast majority of mandates applied through state and federal governments. If people are allowed to sit down with a physician with an established budget, the consumer and the physician can figure out what coverages are most important to that consumer or that family and which coverages aren’t as important.
Let’s remember that every mandate government puts on us increases the cost of health care.
That’s why I support the Patients’ Choice Act, which is co-sponsored in the Senate by Tom Coburn and Richard Burr and co-sponsored in the House by Paul Ryan and Devin Nunes. Here’s an important exchange I had with Rep. Ryan:
2. Shouldn’t people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy?
Yes – that’s a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don’t want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that’s exactly why health insurance shouldn’t be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients’ Choice Act. We don’t want the federal government taking over these decisions – and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
Simply put, the more flexibility consumers have, the more people have to compete for each health care dollar.
Another thing that I can’t emphasize enough, and I’ve already emphasized it, is how much prices drop whenever red tape is eliminated. Letting health care consumers and their physicians make decisions based on the custom-built health insurance policy they put together is a decision made with precision. Letting government dictate through a one-size-fits-all formula has all the precision of a bull in a china shop.
If President Obama and the Democrats were truly interested in improving on the best health care system in the world, they wouldn’t have taken the path they’re currently on. The reason why they didn’t choose to improve flexibility is because they’re more interested in controlling people.
That’s why people are rejecting ObamaCare. It’s important that we implement a system that increases competition and flexibility while reducing costs. That should be what conservatives should push the minute they return to Washington, DC.
Technorati Tags: Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, Patients’ Choice Act, Flexibility, Competition, Conservatism, President Obama, Bureaucracy, Democrats
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
August 5th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Nothing you can do to avoid the physical activity of the military. It is their job to be in shape. Would you want a man that can’t run without being winded to defend this country?? No getting around it either. Suck it up, and look into the benefits you’ll have from it.