Is The Majority Party The Party Of “Do It Our Way Or Else”?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In listening to the shrill exchange between those who support expanding government through legislation like creating a government program to force health care insurance to fit a model of a government dictated outcome or any other number of government in charge type solutions, the party in control of Congress has taken to labeling those who don’t agree as the “Party of No”. I’m not sure what you’re supposed to say to a bad idea that lacks merit, but in considering the question it seems that the real situation is more along the lines of the majority party and their supporters thinking that it ought to be their way or else.
In regard to the health insurance debate, gripping the attention of the landscape, the idea of the “public option”, which is really another name for a government-controlled and operated insurance program is something of this ilk. Responses that reform can take many forms -- and not necessarily of the variety which includes the U.S. Government getting involved with an insurance product – don’t get the time of day before being dismissed as not worthy of consideration. Actually, the real thing that seems to be the perfect solution isn’t an insurance product at all…it’s an automatic payout for whatever medical service or product that the person might require, within the bounds of an independent authority setting the guidelines for what gets paid and what doesn’t.
Insurance is something you buy as a risk aversion tool, with premium payment made not as a “I’ve got to get this back” investment, but as a “in case something happens” hedge. The concept of pay out what you put in is really more along the lines of a pre-paid medical system. Many employers have the ability for employees to set aside pre-taxed dollars into accounts for use in covering the expenses that need to be covered for medical supplies or procedures. If we’re talking about this type of “coverage” then why not set up such a system, zeroing in on those who need or want this type of specific benefit?
Another reform measure, that self-employed people or anyone paying for their own insurance coverage could benefit from would be extending the tax credit that business enterprises get for the insurance expense that they provide to their employees. It’s an expense deduction that should be available on an equal basis, whether you’re a company or an individual.
Supposedly the purpose for the federal government getting into the middle of the health insurance business is to create competition which will prompt current market forces to behave more appropriately than they have. Such a national plan would be (we’re assuming since the actual legislative proposals aren’t in a completed form) universal and transportable anywhere in the U.S. Will the same ability be afforded to existing insurance programs, currently locked into state specific operations? Market competition, without government control, could be achieved by letting those of us in Nevada shop for insurance coverage that is provided in Florida, or from a group insurance plan marketed from Minnesota.
In having these options and variable (market driven) types of coverage, we should also get away from the consequences of state governments requiring mandates for the coverage that a policy “has to have in”. Companies could create (and should be allowed to determine for inclusion in their plans) whatever they think the market would like to buy. Different plans could be created to target specific markets and the much desired “competition” could and would be achieved.
A government-controlled plan with the hosts of mandates that have been discussed as being required for all is not by any stretch of the imagination an “option”. Trying to label this government-controlled approach as something akin to just another thing that’s out there is completely disingenuous and dishonest.
This effort to sell the American public a bill of goods is what is really at the heart of controversy and anger being directed at elected representatives who don’t want to listen to the input they are getting.
In listening to the shrill exchange between those who support expanding government through legislation like creating a government program to force health care insurance to fit a model of a government dictated outcome or any other number of government in charge type solutions, the party in control of Congress has taken to labeling those who don’t agree as the “Party of No”. I’m not sure what you’re supposed to say to a bad idea that lacks merit, but in considering the question it seems that the real situation is more along the lines of the majority party and their supporters thinking that it ought to be their way or else.
In regard to the health insurance debate, gripping the attention of the landscape, the idea of the “public option”, which is really another name for a government-controlled and operated insurance program is something of this ilk. Responses that reform can take many forms -- and not necessarily of the variety which includes the U.S. Government getting involved with an insurance product – don’t get the time of day before being dismissed as not worthy of consideration. Actually, the real thing that seems to be the perfect solution isn’t an insurance product at all…it’s an automatic payout for whatever medical service or product that the person might require, within the bounds of an independent authority setting the guidelines for what gets paid and what doesn’t.
Insurance is something you buy as a risk aversion tool, with premium payment made not as a “I’ve got to get this back” investment, but as a “in case something happens” hedge. The concept of pay out what you put in is really more along the lines of a pre-paid medical system. Many employers have the ability for employees to set aside pre-taxed dollars into accounts for use in covering the expenses that need to be covered for medical supplies or procedures. If we’re talking about this type of “coverage” then why not set up such a system, zeroing in on those who need or want this type of specific benefit?
Another reform measure, that self-employed people or anyone paying for their own insurance coverage could benefit from would be extending the tax credit that business enterprises get for the insurance expense that they provide to their employees. It’s an expense deduction that should be available on an equal basis, whether you’re a company or an individual.
Supposedly the purpose for the federal government getting into the middle of the health insurance business is to create competition which will prompt current market forces to behave more appropriately than they have. Such a national plan would be (we’re assuming since the actual legislative proposals aren’t in a completed form) universal and transportable anywhere in the U.S. Will the same ability be afforded to existing insurance programs, currently locked into state specific operations? Market competition, without government control, could be achieved by letting those of us in Nevada shop for insurance coverage that is provided in Florida, or from a group insurance plan marketed from Minnesota.
In having these options and variable (market driven) types of coverage, we should also get away from the consequences of state governments requiring mandates for the coverage that a policy “has to have in”. Companies could create (and should be allowed to determine for inclusion in their plans) whatever they think the market would like to buy. Different plans could be created to target specific markets and the much desired “competition” could and would be achieved.
A government-controlled plan with the hosts of mandates that have been discussed as being required for all is not by any stretch of the imagination an “option”. Trying to label this government-controlled approach as something akin to just another thing that’s out there is completely disingenuous and dishonest.
This effort to sell the American public a bill of goods is what is really at the heart of controversy and anger being directed at elected representatives who don’t want to listen to the input they are getting.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 9/1/2009 1:11 PM 
Categories: Natioanlized Health Care
Tags: Socialized Medicine Public Insurance Option Health Care Congress
Categories: Natioanlized Health Care
Tags: Socialized Medicine Public Insurance Option Health Care Congress
Comments