Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.
Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.
Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.
A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.
* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.
* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.
* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.
As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.
First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.
Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.
Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.
I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.
Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 19, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Why Require Every Adult to Carrry Health Insurance
Before I begin, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I spent four years of my life working in the insurance industry. Initially, I was an insurance agent and later became the agency coordinator for the Quaker Life Insurance Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jim Inhofe, a current Republican senator from that state was the company president. But in those days, he was the mayor of Tulsa and had not yet gone to Washington.
One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.
At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.
Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.
Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.
If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!
Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
June 18, 2009
One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.
At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.
Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.
Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.
If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!
Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.
That's Wade's two cents!
Wade Houston
June 18, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Stimulating Lies
I support a healthy debate. I believe in honest dialogue. But Republicans in the United States Senate and House are in many cases telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. Some keep repeating those falsehoods over and over with ever louder voices as though doing so would turn a lie into the truth. Chief among the lies they seem to be telling is that this bill will not keep or create jobs. Why?
I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.
On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 13, 2009
I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.
On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)