Media Misinformation on Health Care

Recently I saw an article in Newsweek by Johnathan Alter that was a snarky hit piece on those who disagree with the Federal Government's plan for heath care.

He said: "Why should I be entitled to the same insurance that members of Congress get? Blue Dogs need a lot of medical attention to treat their blueness. I'm just a regular guy and definitely deserve less." The current health care bill is not the same as the Congress's. Not hardly. In fact, the committee crafting the bill voted against holding themselves under the plan. Congress actually has the choice of several private insurance. See: plans.http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_blunt_1.pdf "I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won't be able to get any insurance because of my illness." This is false. There is already a government sponsored plan that covers people in this situation. See The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997. As long as you had health insurance for 62 days prior to changing jobs. "I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today." I have no idea where they got this. Simply search "catastrauphic health insurance." I do know that government regulations make these plans somewhat hard to get. The government does not like insurance companies to offer plans only covering catastrophic health care. And you definitely will not be able to get it once the government undercuts and drives private companies out of the heath insurance business. "The good news is that the $8,000 a year per family that Americans pay for their employer-based health insurance is heading up." It has been documented that the three top reasons that health care costs are going up so fast are: Covering non-emergency health care for illegal aliens, excessive malpractice lawsuit judgments (one of the reasons Europe's health care is cheaper is that there are limits on malpractice lawsuit amounts), and government mandated coverage. If we reformed just one of these, costs would come back down considerably. Some experts say the "health care crisis" could be solved simply by ceasing to cover non-emergency services for illegal aliens. Moreover, almost every objective audit of HR 3200 finds that costs will skyrocket, not go down, if it passes. Conservative estimates range from 1-7 trillion dollars. "And how could the supporters of these reform bills believe in anything as stupid as a "public option"? Do they really believe that the health-insurance cartel deserves a little competition to keep them honest?" The author calls HR 3200 "capitalism." This is anything but. In every single area the government gets involved, the private "competition" goes away, service goes down, and costs go up. Look at the Post Office, or AMTRAK. It's the same when government colludes with private companies to artificially produce a monopoly, like garbage service and cable T.V. The reality is that the government does not play by the same rules as the private sector. In this issue, it is the government that heavily regulates the private insurance sector. It sets up a lack of competition by outlawing insurance companies to operate inter-state. It artificially inflates costs and reduces choice by mandating coverage. For example, here in Oregon I cannot get a plan that does not include prescriptions. I have not had a prescription since I was about 12. I don't need it, but I have to pay for it because the government says I have to have it. Oregon also mandates coverage for: Contraceptives, Alcoholism Treatment, Drug Abuse Treatment, Breast Reconstruction, Cervical cancer/HPV Screening, Mammograms, Mastectomy, Maternity Care and Stay, and PKU/Formula. I don't need any of those, so why do I have to pay for them? Shouldn't I decide if I don't want coverage for something I am never going to use? The author cites the "USPS versus UPS" as evidence of competition between the government and private sector. This is quite humorous given that the USPS has an artificial monopoly on daily letter mail. UPS CANNOT compete in that area of mail service because it is against the law. The USPS is insolvent due to decreasing demand, and their answer is to raise their prices continuously, which they can do because every letter sent "through the mail" goes through them. There is no choice. "You know what part of the status quo I like best? It's a longstanding system for paying doctors called "fee for service." That's where doctors get paid for each procedure they perform..." The alternative is pay-per-patient, where doctors are paid for how many people they see per day (as in HMO's). The service you get from that kind of system is even worse. Obamacare has proposed an even more insidious plan that was abandoned a decade ago: patient pools, where doctors are paid for how many patients they have, no matter how much they see them. Oh yeah, and they are penalized when they refer someone to a specialist. In summary, our healthcare system is the best in the world. It has problems, but there is a reason why people flock here to get medical care, rather than the rest of the world. There is a reason why there are more medical innovations here than anywhere else, including those big bad pharmaseudical companies who have been so terrible as to cure everything from polio to acid reflux. Further, even if we use the dubious number of 47 million who do not have health insurance, that means about 85% of the population is covered, and about 89% of the population is happy with their health care. So why are we going to spend $7,000,000,000,000+ to fix a problem that effects (at the very, very most) 15% of America (BTW, that's almost $150,000 for each of them)? And what's with the headlong rush? Obama wanted this thing passed before anyone could read it in Congress, let alone the American public. That always should make us very nervous. Now that Congress has decided they won't move on it until after the recess, people are becoming increasingly disapproving of HR3200. I think there needs to be reform (see above), but I don't think this is it. Alter employed bumper sticker slogans and short propaganda rallying points, and each one could have been an entire research project. Unfortunately, there are no counter arguments offered in the article. However, there is hope. People are beginning to stand up against this government takeover of another area of our lives.