We are giving away our freedoms
There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]Monday, September 3, 2007
By Timothy Mead
Guest commentary
I hear universal health care being preached as a right of all hard-working Americans. I do not understand why people so passionately wish to give away their freedoms. Whoever writes the check has the power.
First we gave the power to insurance companies. The idea is that the pool of insured persons would pay for those who fell sick and needed expensive care. Insurance was supposed to deliver low-cost health care for everyone through collective bargaining. It was cheap at first. Post World War II companies used insurance as a benefit to slow runaway wage increases. As people used their benefits more, the price went up. Companies began sharing the cost with employees because the increases were out of control.
The insurance company was paying the bill and so new rules began to be imposed as a way to control costs. In a desperate attempt to control prices, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) were born. They controlled the rules of what was "covered," and employees did not always get the health care they wanted.
While services have been reduced, the price continues to go up. About 50 percent of employers are small businesses. Many are finding it too expensive to foot the insurance bill -- even a portion of it. For some employees, their portion of insurance premiums is so expensive that they choose to go without.
Medicaid was supposed to cover the poor, but many of the growing uninsured population are too wealthy to be covered by Medicaid. Even if Medicaid were expanded, it is not accepted by all doctors. It simply doesn't pay enough to keep doctors in business. Canada has the same problem with its social insurance program.
Health insurance has always been about somebody else paying the health care expenses, and so the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was born. What could be a better fit than letting a socially declared evil like tobacco pay for kids to have insurance? Yeah, let the smokers pay to solve the problem!
But it is simply a foot in the door for universal health care. It's a sweet deal for the tobacco companies, because it ensures a steady supply of customers. After all, if everyone stopped smoking, who would pay for CHIP? So what is the incentive on the part of the government to end smoking? None. In fact, it looks good to be tough on tobacco while funding children's health care.
Where is it going? The 16th amendment was sold as a "tax the rich" measure, but eventually grew into wider taxation. I see that CHIP will grow in scope and cost. Eventually the tobacco money will not be enough to fund CHIP and will have to be supplemented. Just as Medicare has become the base insurance for seniors, CHIP will become the base insurance for kids, and CHIP supplemental insurance will be sold. Many politicians will be elected on an "expand CHIP coverage" platform, but eventually doctors will begin to refuse to take new CHIP patients, just as they are doing now with Medicaid.
Clearly, repeating history is no way to change it. Reaching into other people's pockets to pay the bill is not solving the problem.
Mead lives in Ogden.
Text 
