Navigating Health Care

Senator Paul’s caricature of Ryan’s health care bill as Obama Light seems to be accurate. As the debate ensues, several realities must remain front and center.

As I’ve reminded readers in the past, those of us who warned in 2009 that it would be almost impossible to overturn the ACA were correct. The reason is political. Ending or limiting an entitlement is presented by Democrats and the press as “taking something away from the poor,” and few Republicans have the conviction or the stomach to make the argument. Leftists continue to ask Republicans how they will ensure that anyone who benefitted from Obamacare won’t lose their benefits with a reform. Most Republicans accept the ACA entitlement as a starting point and suggest limited modifications, such as ending the mandate and allowing purchases across state lines. When Representative Jason Chaffetz politely suggested that it might be necessary to forego purchasing a new iPhone to pay for healthcare, the left went crazy. While he is obviously correct, we must accept political reality. Undoing the entire Obamacare entitlement simply will not happen.

While healthcare is not a right because proclaiming it as such creates obligations on others to pay for it, EMTALA requires ERs to provide care to anyone to enters regardless of ability (or willingness) to pay. As a result, basic care at public expense is already encoded in federal law. Conservatives and pragmatic libertarians would be wise to recognize this reality and attack the left’s inconsistency. While Democrats claim to favor the type of “universal access” to healthcare found in other developed countries, but they aren’t willing to tax everyone to pay for it. Granted, wealthier Canadians and Brits pay more that low wage earners to support socialized medicine, but everyone who’s working pays a significant amount into the system. The real issue for the Democrats is not access, but who pays the tab, which is why Chaffetz’s comment struck a nerve.

Most Republicans agree that Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance, but requiring insurance companies to accept applicants with preexisting conditions is equally wrong. This policy cocktail encourages healthy Americans to use EMTALA when they get sick and wait until they need coverage to buy it, thereby creating losses for insurance companies that must be covered by government subsidies, higher premiums, or some combination of the two. The “free rider” reality must be faced head on.

There are sound, free-market ideas that should be a part of healthcare reform. If Republicans are going to unite around a bill that makes a real difference-not just Obamacare Light—they must insist on individual accountability. Quality healthcare will be cheaper in a free market, but it won’t be free. Anyone unwilling to forego an iPhone upgrade to pay medical expenses should be ashamed.

8 thoughts on “Navigating Health Care

  1. The only way to maximize coverage is to force people to buy insurance. This should be the republican’s rally cry.

  2. So what happens when someone doesn’t buy it and then can’t afford to pay if they get real sick? Should everyone else have to pay for it?

  3. There should be single payer for catastrophic care for everyone because it’s going to happen anyway. Then let people do whatever they want to regular expenses.

  4. We’re in too deep. There’s not way that the Republicans will put together a bill that completely reforms the system. Why not give everyone a tax deduction for private insurance and pay for it with the border tax. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it.

  5. The cost of a new iPhone ($650-$750) is nothing compare to the cost of a surgery
    (thousands of $$), and according to Pew survey, only 13% of low income people (that make $30,000 or less) use it .

    Excluding people with preexisting conditions from coverage is moral. No one can afford the cost of chronic illness or severe disease without insurance. Of-course, insurance companies want us young and healthy, pay our premiums on time, and cost them nothing.

  6. I meant to say immoral — Excluding people with preexisting conditions from coverage is immoral. sorry for the typo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *