Ok, so I listened to the President’s speech, and even took notes so that I’d be able to consider things fully and not forget something that was said. I gave myself the night off from Facebook so that I wouldn’t be tempted to get into competitive urination with anyone before considering closely what President Obama had to say. I re-read my notes this morning, then taught class, then came back to try to put some thoughts down about my opinions of what happened. Thus, I hope I’ve given myself enough time to consider the President’s proposals rationally.
There are things I like, and things I don’t like. I like the idea of malpractice litigation reform. I noticed that the President tacked that onto the end of the speech and talked about doing some pilot programs in states to see how it works. I fear that, whatever happens with the pilot programs in the states, the politicians will decide that it doesn’t meet their benchmarks and scrap the idea as a whole. I just don’t think that a mistake made by a human doctor or nurse should be someone’s ticket to lifetime riches. It’s not that I don’t think that mistakes should have consequences. They absolutely should. I just think that punishment for mistakes should be limited. If we don’t keep murderers locked up for life, we shouldn’t punish doctors for life for their mistakes. Litigation reform would drive down the cost of malpractice insurance, which would reduce costs for doctors and hospitals, thus reducing the cost of healthcare.
I don’t like the President’s plans for reforming the private insurance industry. Before anyone goes nuts telling me how un-compassionate I am, please allow me to explain. Insurance in general is predicated on the idea of risk. The insurance company is betting, in effect, that you won’t have to make claims on their services very often. Thus, if you have a low risk of making claims on them, you pay a lower premium. If you are high-risk, you pay a higher premium. This is why 16-year-old drivers pay more for auto insurance than 26- or 36-year-old drivers. They are a greater risk to the insurance company. President Obama’s plan for reforming private insurance will force those companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions (greater risk by definition), will disallow modification of policy on sick people (which is a dirty trick, anyway), will eliminate limits on coverage and on out-of-pocket expenses (making it more likely to cost the companies more overall), and will make it mandatory that medical insurance cover more tests and procedures that it currently does (adding to both the cost and the risk that people will make claims on the insurance companies). In all likelihood, the cumulative effect of these reforms will be to drive the price of private insurance through the roof. Since insurance premiums are based on actuarial statistics and complex mathematical formulae, they will go up as cost and risk go up. It’s a natural progression.
I sort of like the idea of an insurance exchange. I certainly think it would be great if medical insurance companies could compete across state lines the way auto insurance companies can. Aside from the annoying commercials, the benefits to consumers would be immense. Low-cost auto insurance is available most anywhere you go. Low-cost medical insurance should be, as well. By finding a way to make interstate competition happen, the government would be doing a favor to the citizens of this country. If this insurance exchange is the way to do it, then so be it.
I don’t like the idea of mandatory insurance coverage for everyone, for two reasons. One, I think it’s just one more bit of freedom and choice taken away from us by a government that’s too intrusive now. Secondly, if such a thing is to be mandatory, it should be undertaken by the states, on Tenth Amendment grounds. Auto insurance is mandatory in some places, and not in others. Medical insurance should be handled the same way. The state governments, being closer to their people, know better what should be the law for those people than the national government. We fought that one out from 1776-1781. Look it up.
I’m glad that the President has promised us that no federal dollars will go to insure illegal aliens or to perform abortions. I, along with a great many other people, will be watching closely to make sure that this promise is kept.
I don’t like the public option. I understand that the President believes it will be an engine of competition and choice for the American people and that very few people will sign up for it, but I’m not so sure. When the price of private insurance skyrockets (as the actuarial tables show that it must), many people and many employers are not going to be able to afford private insurance any longer and will be forced to the public option. Also, you cannot successfully compete with the entity that makes the rules. People have said that FedEx and UPS compete with the USPS, but that’s not true. By law, FedEx and UPS can only offer specialty services and cannot charge lower rates than the USPS. That’s not competition. The President made the analogy of public colleges competing with private ones. That’s a false analogy as well. With a government subsidy, public colleges can offer much smaller tuition than private colleges. Thus, you have relatively few students that go to private colleges compared with public ones. He also said that the public option would be self-sufficient, operating only from the premiums paid to it. Having been told this by the same government that brought us the “self-sufficient” Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and Post Office, forgive me if I say, I’ll believe it when I see it. Finally, I don’t like that the government will, by necessity, have access to people’s medical records under the public option. The government knows too much about all of us now. They don’t need to invade our privacy any further.
I liked that the President, at least on the surface, seemed willing to listen to other people. A good idea is a good idea and should be accepted and used regardless of where it comes from. I hope that this spirit of cooperation persists and there are good things that come from it.
I didn’t like all of the extraneous BS that went along with the speech. I’m talking about Joe Wilson screaming at the President. That’s uncalled for and he should have more respect for the office of the President than that. I also didn’t like the use of the death of Ted Kennedy to push along a political agenda. That’s uncalled for, as well. Finally, I dislike being lectured on morality and justice by liberal politicians who have told me repeatedly over the years that character shouldn’t matter. These people defended perjury from a sitting President based on the argument that “everybody does it”. They have advocating fundamentally changing the institution of marriage. They advocated the killing of the unborn through abortion. And, now, when it suits their political agenda, they begin to tell me that it is the right, charitable, and just thing to do to provide healthcare for the uninsured. When I consider the source, it’s all I can do not to laugh. Anyway, as Forrest Gump once said, that’s all I have to say, about that.
“Now, we have inscribed a new memory alongside those others. It’s a memory of tragedy and shock, of loss and mourning. But not only of loss and mourning. It’s also a memory of bravery and self-sacrifice, and the love that lays down its life for a friend–even a friend whose name it never knew. “
