I don’t (in theory) have to have my car, so the insurance mandate is optional, but I do have to have my body (a fatal flaw in Obamacare?)

Perhaps the individual mandate was the fatal flaw in Obamacare.

From what I just read on the web, the Supreme Court justices, the conservative ones, plus the swing man, Justice Kennedy, a conservative whose vote can sometimes go either way, appear to be tipping their hands, via questioning, indicating they are quite skeptical of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. That of course threatens the whole Obamacare package, that is based on the premise that health care can be provided to all if everyone chips in.

But you never know about high court justices, they can indicate one thing, even in a final opinion, and then come smack down on the other side. But it does seem that the conservative majority is preparing to dismantle or severely weaken Obamacare.

A law requiring one to deal with a private company sticks in my craw as well. I am required to do so to buy car insurance, but theoretically I don’t have to have a car. I have to have my body.

I just cannot understand why Americans are so against some kind of cooperative scheme that would benefit us all. Health care is expensive and there seems to be no way to keep it in line. But a single-payer program (which Obamacare is not) would allow that single payer bargaining power.

I have personally witnessed people (I won’t name names) who have railed against government health care and who at the same time have used it to the max.

———————–

What follows is my previous and related blog post on the issue:

So, as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs into the Obamacare controversy, this thought comes to me:　

The idea of the government mandating that you buy health insurance from a private company draws heavy resistance (doesn‘t even sound right to me).

But the costs of health insurance continue to escalate and there seems no way to control them.

Some people choose not to carry health insurance, or some cannot afford it and/or it is not available to them.

But just because one does not have insurance does not mean the costs disappear.

Out of law and moral imperative, the medical establishment does not simply refuse to treat people over lack of insurance (in general — there are cases where people are denied certain types of treatment or face obstacles).

The costs of treating the uncovered people must be borne by those who are.

The cost of medical care seems to see no limit in its escalation, despite the ups and downs of the economic cycle, partly due to the ever-expanding technology available, that as wondrous as it is, is quite costly, and raises individual expectations on what constitutes reasonable and rightful medical care.

In an effort to both get everyone covered and have everyone pay his or her fair share into the pool, what is now called Obamacare was passed.

It is heavily opposed by conservatives, to include much or most of the business community, which usually is automatically considered part of the conservative contingent.

But I note that the trucking company I work for is a member of an insurance consortium made up of several trucking companies.

In an effort to beat the cost of private insurance for liability out on the road, where not only does one have to pay for the risk, but for the profit of a private insurance company, the business competitors have banded together, pooling their resources for the common good of each member. As I understand it, if a member racks up a good enough safety score, the member eventually gets money back.

So it seems to me if conservative business people (or non-conservatives, for that matter) can see the economic benefit and the logic of shared risk, minus the costly profit motive, then why cannot people see it for individual health care coverage?

Seems to me that having the federal government administer some kind of shared risk pool for health insurance coverage would not be a bad idea (and that is not really the Obamacare approach, but that is not the point here).

Or, perhaps, there could be some type of legal mechanism to allow for the creation of non-governmental, but non-profit, risk pools.

Just a thought.

P.s.

Insurance had its beginnings in non-profit risk pools.

Why isn’t the medical profession more active in health insurance policy?

I sometimes wonder why doctors, the medical profession, are not in the forefront of the issue of how to provide medical care for the populace. While they often complain they do not get paid enough by insurance, especially government insurance, from my perspective they take a back seat when it comes to how to resolve the problem.

From what little conversations I have had with doctors about this, I get the impression that they are reluctant to commit themselves because they fear if they go too far they might end up with a situation that would not maximize their profits. In this poor economy with so many people having lost their health insurance they may be hurting, but economies are cyclical things and if the economy comes back maybe more people will have insurance and the money will come rolling in. So let’s don’t get hasty about things and push for some form of all-inclusive government health care where we all will be at the mercy of Uncle Sam and Medicare.

Yes, I know we have Obamacare now, but I still have not figured that one out, that is what it does — in my personal case nothing that I know of.

I am not trying to be critical of doctors and at my age and with my health condition, which is having what I am told is an incurable, but slow-moving, cancer, I’m greatly appreciative of them. But it does seem to me that if they would take the long view of it all they might be more active in the issue. And I don’t think Obamacare has settled the issue and I think there is a good chance a Republican will be in the White House in a little over a year (not sure, just have a hunch) and all the candidates, as far as I know, have vowed to do what they can to dismantle Obamacare — then what?

What prompted this post is an article I just read in the online version of the Sacramento Bee newspaper about local dentists feeling the pinch of the economy with so many patients not being able to afford treatments. For some reason, I have noticed, dental insurance is hard to get and is paltry in its payments. I know mine, through work, is. I used up my big $1,000 in yearly allowance and just forked over a pile of bills out of my pocket for further treatment — it you wait on dentist work, the tooth decay and gum recession does not and it costs a lot more or you go without any teeth (that was my thinking). Anyway, it occurred to me that maybe those poor dentists should have been a little more concerned about how to provide dental healthcare to the public at large in the past.

I know that both medical doctors and dentists are busy professionals who spend a lot of time providing care for their patients and maybe feel it is up to the politicians to figure out public policy. Well you can leave it up to them and this is what you get.

But should any of my doctors read this — again, I am not criticizing, really I’m just writing words — it’s my form of recreation, but maybe it is something to ponder.

—————

About dentists losing business to economy:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/23/3998013/dentists-patients-feel-economys.html

As Dr. Phil might say: How’s that Obamacare working for you? And as I say, where’s the savings?

I just got a letter with my last paycheck statement from my employer that says health insurance rates are going up this year — no big surprise, that’s what they always do.

The letter said that Blue Shield was raising its rates. The letter did not say directly whether that meant I would see more money coming out of my paycheck (I pay part of the premium and the employer pays part). What it did say was that in reaction to the rate raise the company was changing to another Blue Shield Plan. I don’t know what all that means yet. I suspect it means less coverage for more money — that has usually been the case.

OKAY, I just called and found out. I could stay on my current plan, but I would be facing a 60-plus percent rate increase out of my own pocket, but I can move to another plan with a higher deductible and actually get a slightly smaller premium than I am currently paying. Like I said, I basically have to pay more money for less coverage (as Dr. Phil would say: how‘s that working for you?).

Again, I ask, where is the savings?

I also have to wonder why it is that health insurance is going up when the annual rate of inflation is going down, from past years. During most of my life inflation was considered to be a big problem in the economy. Now most everyone is concerned about deflation, well, except not in the health care industry, I guess.

This post is a kind of continuation of one I did a few days ago on Obamacare — and by the way, I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily against Obamacare. For all I know it may actually be positive — I just don‘t know yet (and at 61 with incurable cancer, but thankfully presently kind of dormant, I may never find out). All I really said in that post was rates seem to be going up and medical specialists are reportedly looking for other work since government payments are going down.

 

 

 

 

http://tonywalther.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/does-new-health-care-law-improve-things-hard-to-tell/

Subsequently I was forwarded an article from one of my readers suggesting that a positive effect of the new health care law is that small businesses are flocking to get coverage for their employees as the result of a tax break being offered in that law.

 http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/

That was interesting, but it was obvious that the author of the article was an advocate for Obamacare. Also, why would anyone work for an employer who did not offer health insurance or why would an employer not offer health insurance if the employer cared anything about its employees — being that we do not have full-blown government health care for everyone (socialized medicine if you will)? The answer is some of us have to take what we can get and some business people actually do not care.

But anyway, while the article seemed to suggest that Obamacare was inducing small businesses to take a positive step, I also note that the tax breaks are temporary and that past 2014 some businesses will actually face a penalty if they do not offer health care (and since society as a whole seems to think health care should be tied to employment, I would think the mandate is correct).

Not that it makes any difference, but I am certainly willing to give Obamacare the benefit of the doubt. But I will be tiresome here and repeat that I think they should have just extended Medicare to everyone. Now of course that has to be paid for. So pay for it through taxes like we do everything else for the shared benefit of society.  At least it would (or should) be tax money well spent — good health for all.

In the end, it really broke down to this: supporters of Obamacare (Democrat and Republican) wanted to pass something that would provide health care to all and without going to a strictly socialist approach, leaving in private health insurance as a major component of the whole system.

Opponents represented primarily those who just did not want to give Democrats a victory and thus political advantage, as well as the Scrooge set.

Does new health care law improve things? Hard to tell…

Just got back from my primary care doctor and have come away with this slant on the effects of the new health care law, often referred to as “Obama Care”:

The doctor would refer me to a specialist if necessary but many of them, the doctor warns, are demanding pay up front and that the patients hassle with the insurance later on their own, this due, I understand, partly because of cuts in what the government will pay.

Some specialists are actually going out of business or changing to primary care because with reduced payments there is not as much money in specialties.

If the result is that the trend goes back to general practitioners, the old family doctor, that might be a positive trend — except when you really need a specialist.

I don’t know if this is really in direct relation to Obama Care or just the current realities in the business/field of medicine, but that was the inference to be drawn, that is it is the result of the new health care law.

Right as it was passed an elderly woman in my apartment complex told me that her Medicare supplement insurance premium jumped way up unexpectedly.

The way I see it, if the government totally runs health care it can call the shots (although it would have to find the doctors to cooperate), but if not, there is no law that says an insurance company has stay in business or keep offering health coverage if it does not want to, and a doctor does not have to practice medicine if he or she does not want to.

I’m all for health care reform, but I am not for making things more complicated than they already are.

It seems politically this nation, the United States of America, does not support socialized medicine, even though it has gotten used to Medicare, a variant of that.

I just saw something on the CBS Evening News that suggested that health insurance rates are going way up, but the health insurance companies say it is not about the health care law, but about higher costs and the fact that when higher costs make healthy people drop out of the health insurance market, that leaves unhealthier people in the pool and that costs the insurance companies more money.

(Of course I don’t think people on employer group plans tend to drop out, but a lot of people are unemployed or are self-employed or work at places that do not offer plans.)

I tried to do some research to make sense of the new health care law, but it seems like just too much to wade through and no clear answers (remember, congress passed it without reading it).

I did hear one business leader, who runs a company that is actually hiring, though, say that he thought the Republicans were wrong to pick the health care fight. He indicated that they should instead cooperate with Obama to zero directly in on the economy.

And I still do not understand why the business community would not stand wholeheartedly behind some form of single-payer government health care in order to take the monkey off their backs (except I suppose that would mean higher taxes). But of course they do not want a law that would lock them into providing health care no matter what the rates.

It’s all very confusing.

While the threat by the Republicans is to repeal the new health care law in total or in part, my bet is that if economic conditions improve over the coming year, fervor to monkey with the new health are law will die down.

But I still would say improve or expand Medicare, but don’t ruin health coverage that already has existed and worked.　

And as I have always maintained, I am no more, or little more, concerned about a government bureaucrat making decisions on my health care than a private company bureaucrat, except that theoretically in the free market you can go elsewhere, but when you are already into your illness it is a little late.

It is all really quite a mess. One wonders how long one can afford to live.

In fact, that elderly woman who said her Medicare supplement insurance premium skyrocketed reacted this way when I told her my mom was turning 100:

“Goodness, I couldn’t afford to live that long!”

So, can you and should you be forced to buy health insurance? It’s an important question for the Supreme Court

Now this is interesting.  A federal judge in Virginia has ruled — I just heard, well earlier today  – that the federal mandate to buy health insurance (that does not go into effect until 2014) is unconstitutional. While the government can use the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce it cannot force someone to buy insurance, he held. Now this is just one judge, one court, and other federal judges have held otherwise,  I understand, and this matter will likely reach the Supreme Court, I also understand.

While I totally see the rationale of forcing people to buy insurance, there does seem something troubling about the government being able to force one to deal with a private entity. At least with mandated car insurance you could choose not to drive a car. But you can hardly choose what goes wrong with your body.

I recently blogged about the mandate to buy insurance under President Obama’s new health care law. I made the analogy with car insurance. It’s only fair that you be required to buy auto insurance when everyone else who drives is subjected to the risk and those who are responsible pay their share for insurance — so maybe it ought to be that way with health insurance. Maybe if you opt out of health insurance you ought to be made to sign a statement or waiver, as it were, to the effect you will demand no government care at taxpayer’s expense — ever, and that the government is not required to provide it for you. I don’t really think all that is practical or moral, though.

So, this notion of the government being able to force citizens to deal with a private company (buying health insurance) is certainly destined to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, there is no immediate effect both because the provision was not in effect yet and because the judge declined to issue any kind of injunction along with his ruling, as I understand it.

At the risk of being tiresome, I say again, the problem is providing health care to those who have no resources themselves and cannot otherwise obtain it. That, I think is a moral imperative. Personally I would not be against some type of national health care system, commonly referred to as “socialized medicine”  (well actually that label is pase’, so commonly called “socialism”). But our own unique American system, really not a  system, but a hodgepodge of public and private and employer-based insurance, is entrenched. So why could we not simply live up to our responsibility to the less fortunate (which in this economy could be nearly anyone of us) and move on?

Doctors ought to be made to treat Medicare patients and even work at public clinics as a condition of their licenses…

How’s that health care reform working for you?

So far all that I am hearing is that health insurance companies are rushing to raise their rates before all the new requirements kick in. But somehow, eventually the new rules are supposed to save everyone money.

And while I understand this next thing has nothing to do with the new health care law, I just read a story that new cuts are set to be made in Medicare and that doctors are threatening to refuse service to Medicare patients and maybe even go out of business.

The Medicare cut thing has to do with some cost control measures put into effect years ago and inaction by congress, as I understand it.

Certainly government payments to doctors ought to have some appearance of reasonability — something close to the going rate. But at the same time it would seem to me medical ethics would dictate against refusing to treat patients.

Maybe the government could pull the licenses of doctors who refuse to treat patients.

Yes, I know, medicine is a business.

Nonetheless, the law requires one to have a medical license to practice medicine. That gives a lot of power to the government over doctors.

Here’s an idea: Maybe as a condition of maintaining a current medical license doctors ought to be required to treat Medicare patients and even do a certain amount of free public service at public clinics.

While I would be generally in favor of some form of national health care, failing that I think the government could take simple steps such as making doctors more accountable to the needs of the public through conditions on their licensing.

P.s.

Don’t know if this has anything to do with the new health care law but at the private cancer center I have been going to the oncologist I have been seeing is leaving town to be with his doctor wife who practices elsewhere. I was told that on my next appointment I would not be seeing a doctor, but a physician’s assistant. I told them sorry, I don’t do PAs. They told me sorry, but that is the way they do it. I already had the experience of being in the hospital and being charged (may insurance being charged) for seeing a doctor when I actually was seen by a PA.

(I know, the use of paraprofessionals is supposed to be a cost efficiency measure. But when I want to see a doctor, I don’t want to see a doctor’s helper anymore than when I call a plumber I want to be given a plumber’s helper — pun, such as it is, intended.)

P.s. P.s.

And one more thing. New health care law or no, I am 61 and would just as soon not work so hard or go to some other type work (I’m an over-the-road driver), but I need my employer’s group insurance.

Yeah, how’s that new health care law working?

You won’t miss your Social Security or government-supported health care until you have had it and lost it…

Maybe the vast majority of American voters really do want to repeal — not fix or adjust — the new health care law, and maybe they want to privatize Social Security or scuttle it altogether — I find that hard to believe, but maybe. Certainly the Republicans, with the help of the Tea Party, feel they have the political capital to do just that.

I don’t know if the health care law is helping me or not but I do know that something needed to be done and the whole system is not sustainable as it is, that is unless we are willing to let vast numbers of people go without adequate health care.

Like a stuck record I keep saying that President Obama should have concentrated on making sure that those without any health care coverage had coverage made available to them and left it at that, but I think he saw what he thought was a one-time opportunity to enact something that has been talked about nearly a century or more, with a, believe it or not, Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, bringing it up in the first place.

I think Obama misjudged, and I think he realizes it now. Vast numbers of people are without work and just as many or more are scared they will be in the unemployment lines and others who had investments in bonds and notes have seen interest rates drop to near zero, due to the Great Recession/Depression — there goes that.

While I think the Republican/Tea Party bunch exaggerate when they claim the Obama administration is trying to turn the USA into some kind of socialist/communist state, there is something there. Many Democrats are into a kind of socialist ideology whether they like to think so or not. I think there is a place for social programs, but one can get carried away.

Maybe the best way to sell social programs is to gut what we have and let people see what it is like to go naked, so to speak.

To at least paraphrase a song I know: I never missed it until I had it and I lost it, and now I can’t live without it anymore.

Federal requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance seems the only practical option…

A few days ago I blogged that I thought the American people ought to give Obamacare a chance at least, since no other credible reform had ever been suggested and there was no question that we needed reform in that at some point most would not even be able to afford health care.

I still pretty much feel the same way, but I wanted to address the contention that it is wrong for the government to require citizens to carry health insurance, that is to require one to do business with a private company (health insurance provider), as mandated by 2014 in Obamacare (which is now the law of the land).

At first blush I would be against such a requirement.

But I think it comes down to this: Most states (if not all) require that drivers carry auto insurance because someone has to pay for damages and it is unfair and not at all practical to allow some folks to drive around without any insurance (although many scofflaws do) and cause damage to others but then turn around and claim they can’t pay or actually try to collect money when they are injured, while never paying for insurance themselves. Also, a large pool of uninsured people just makes insurance for those who pay their premiums more expensive.

That same argument can and is used in support of requiring all to purchase health insurance, even if it means the government requring you to do business with a private company.

One federal court has now ruled that such a requirement is NOT unconstitutional. http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/health-insurance-mandate-upheld/

It supports its argument using the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. That clause is pretty much of a catch-all that allows the federal government to do a lot of things if they can be somehow construed as connected with interstate commerce. But I am not interested in getting into some kind of legal analysis here (and I am not a lawyer either).

I think in practical terms everyone has to pay something, at least according to his or her means, into some type of insurance pool for health care, whether it be in the way of premiums for private insurance or taxes or whatever.

As a society we demand the best health care available and at the same time we in good conscience cannot bring ourselves to think we would simply turn people away because they cannot afford care (although to a degree that is done quite often).

I personally would have preferred that we had gone to some type of government-paid national health insurance or simply retained our current patch-work system with the only change being that we covered gaps in which people were left out of coverage because they did not qualify for existing social programs but did not have enough money to pay for insurance and care on their own.

The Republican opposition offered little to nothing in the way of reform except resistance to any measurable change (if I am wrong here, send me the evidence) in the then current unsustainable and unfair system.

The only thing we are left with is to see if Obamacare works.

Well, I suppose there is some chance that in the coming elections we could wind up with enough Republicans and/or Tea Partiers that Obamacare could be altered or done away with.

If that were the case, I have to wonder if the American people would be satisfied with what would likely happen: everyone on their own, you get the kind of medical care you as an individual can pay for.

That might not be good for the health of our society and would not be good for our productivity either.

P.s.

It occurs to me that an alternative might be to retain the requirement that all purchase health insurance if somehow real competition in the marketplace could be created or assured. And maybe that in essence is what some Republicans have suggested (maybe not the government mandate part, except the mandate would exist as a practical requirment for survival, nonetheless). But it is not the role of private enterprise to provide equitable and fair service to all. It is the role of private enterprise to make the most money it can. Private enterprise with a strong middle class is the model that has provided the highest standard of living for the most people in history and it is the model that has led to what we consider democracy in the western world. But the alarming inflation in the cost of health care is in itself a threat and a cause for the erosion of the middle class. Sometimes even in a free market individuals have to band together for the common good.

At least give Obamacare a chance, or should we just get sick and die?

While I was not a strong supporter of what is sometimes called “Obamacare” by its detractors, but the new federal health care law by others, for the life of me I cannot understand why the average American could be so enraged by it or want to repeal it.

————————————

ADD 1:

Now that I think about it I don’t even know what average Americans think about Obamacare — I just hear some of the rantings of the Tea Party and opportunistic Republicans.

———————————————–

It hasn’t even been given a chance to work yet. And the status quo was only good for those who could afford it or those who accepted free care.

I don’t even know if I am benefiting from it or will, but I do know that without some type of change most of us would be priced out of the market and millions would not be able to get insurance because millions of people have lost their jobs and their company health insurance along with it. And on that, I am not even sure that Obamacare helps.

Republicans and tea partiers would have you believe that Obamacare is bad for small businesses, whom they claim to represent or support. But I heard a spokesman for a small business group on television say that quite the contrary, that the new law actually takes some of the burden off of small business in offering health insurance, I guess by creating the insurance pools that are supposed to eventually bring costs down or hold them in check. He said that as things had stood businesses could not afford the ever-escalating costs of providing health insurance to their employees.

Personally, while I accept that it is the practice in this nation that health insurance goes along with employment (and I know that is certainly not always the case), I have never thought that was practical. In my own case I was lucky to work for a company at the time I was diagnosed with cancer that paid my health insurance premiums 100 percent (not much of that anymore). And the insurance paid a lot of the cost. But unfortunately I was out too long and lost my job — and that good insurance that went with it.

I work for a previous employer now and have company health insurance, with part of the premium paid by me. Each year the premiums go up and the benefits are adjusted downward.

But as I understand it, the new law is designed to make health care delivery more efficient and hopefully over the long run more economical.

I also understand the law is convoluted and full of compromises that have weakened what was originally hoped for by its proponents.

But a lot of those who are being convinced by others with ulterior motives that Obamacare is so terrible are the same ones who may find themselves sick and without insurance or money and will be the first in line to demand or sign up for government assistance. And they will all claim they paid into it via taxes through the years.

Or they may be the people who never took any responsibility to purchase health insurance even though they could have but take advantage of the charity of health care providers who sometimes do perform surgery and offer treatment without charging the patient. But of course in reality someone pays for it.

There have been so many advances in health care over the years that have been a boon to patients but have also made costs skyrocket and there has been so much inefficiency in the delivery system that it seems to me the only practical way to provide health care for everyone is through a cooperative effort paid by us all via the government. But something that would be called national health care or socialized medicine cannot fly in our political climate.

And perhaps private enterprise under government oversight is the way to go for us.

If Obamacare really does not work it can be repealed, but one would think it ought to be given a chance. The status quo is bankrupting us and is not providing health care in any kind of equitable fashion. And I never did hear any credible alternatives put forth by the opposition other than let the free market work when so far it had not worked so well.

　

P.s.

I have heard disquieting reports about premiums skyrocketing and insurance providers dropping coverage in anticipation of implementation of the new rules.

Conservatives by their own named designation would prefer to go back to the old ways. You get sick and die — end of story.

P.s. P.s

Actually the status quo was probably alright for the rich and those who had good insurance and to some extent those who gamed the welfare system, but not so good for the vast majority of working people, a large number of whom were not even offered insurance through their work. Again, I don’t even know if the new rules address the problems adequately — but they are an attempt.

There is promise in health care reform bill — we can only hope it works!

While I have thought that President Obama had taken on too much in his push for health care reform and used up too much political capital in the process, now that it seems to be going through, I can only hope that it is at least a step in the right direction and that once the smoke clears people will find they like it — and take that Republicans! What are you going to say to that? Probably “oh, we were for it all along”.

But I confess, despite reading things about health care reform for so long and trying to keep my ears (and mind) open, I still barely have a clue what it all means. I do know that I might not be alive when some of the provisions kick in.

(ADD 1: Yes, I know there are supposed to be provisions in the bill (bills) that you cannot be turned down for pre-existing conditions and that you can’t have your insurance cancelled because you got sick, and that insurance companies can no longer cut off, say, your cancer treatment because you have reached a cap in costs.)

What I hope is that it will be as President Obama promised so many times during the campaign — no one who already has coverage they like will lose it or see it hurt by the new legislation.

I also hope that it will actually bring the deficit down — that almost seems counterintuitive, though.

And, I also hope that it will not negatively affect the current Medicare program and other such already-existing and quite popular government health programs.

And, I hope that in fairly short order, no one, but no one, will be denied medical coverage and care of some kind, whether they have money to pay for it or not.

There is a provision that eventually will require everyone to buy health insurance  (the government would help those who truly could not afford it) and face a  penalty if they do not do so. At first blush I did not like that idea. I didn’t like the idea that the government can force someone to pay money to a private company. But of course that is already the case for, say, car insurance (liability coverage). And after talking to someone about the matter, I agreed that it is also not right that some people do not pay for health coverage, but at the same time they expect and the government requires that medical providers do not turn patients away, at least for emergency cases. Often the medical providers (such as hospitals) and the taxpaying and insurance paying public have to pick up the tab.

True story: I was sitting in a cancer support group meeting and a woman sitting next to me told the group that she and her husband had no medical insurance, he being self-employed, but nonetheless the hospital had given him major treatment at its own expense (which, of course, has to be transferred onto the paying patients) . While I was glad that he got treatment, I could only think of all the agony my wife and I went through trying to make sure we could maintain our health coverage while I was not working due to being out while being treated for cancer. Thanks to health coverage paid by a former employer, plus premiums we paid, and the help of family, I was able to get treatment — but nothing was free for us (and my family). A system like that is not fair and equitable.

For those of you who do not want to pay for someone else’s medical coverage, the truth is you are already are doing so. Hopefully, under the new legislation the burden of cost will be spread out in a more equitable fashion.

I personally would prefer universal coverage paid for by all of us through taxes. Some argue there would be rationing. There already is. Some argue that the government rather than patients and their doctors would make the health care decisions. Well, at this time the private health care industry bureaucracy makes those decisions based on its goal of minimizing costs (read care) and maximizing profits.

But at any rate, the pressure from the private health care lobby and from a citizenry brought up on our haphazard so-called “system” works against the institution of what is sometimes called a “single-payer” system of government health care or even “socialized medicine” — although Social Security is so popular that any politician who threatens to mess with it faces retribution at the polls.

At the risk of repeating myself one too many times, I still think that Obama should have just pushed through a program that covers all those not covered now and left it at that.

But if his so-called reform really works, the public is sure to take a liking to it and then look out — Republicans will be wishing they supported it and will likely change their tune.

In conclusion I say to President Obama:

“You better hope this thing works!” Because if it does not, you have wasted a lot of political capital and not only you but all of us who fear the return of disastrous Republican control stand to suffer the dire consequences.

P.s.

In a discussion with someone near and dear to me who tends to support the liberal position, it was suggested by this someone, nonetheless, that maybe if people had to pay for health care coverage or just not get it (no government protection) then maybe people would appreciate the cost and people would buy coverage and be more particular to get what they pay for. That would be the libertarian (not liberal) free-market approach.