Our Sneaky Legislators Get One Right
Some of the usual sources are whining about successful efforts by legislators to eliminate a proposal to garantee healthcare for all Utahns. Their complaints about this proposal being killed behind closed doors resonate with me but I’m glad this wrongheaded idea was whacked. We need to provide help to those in our society who need it but universal healthcare is just an obviously stupid idea.
Why did the conservatives in our legislature feel like they needed to do this in such a sneaky manner? The arguments against this idea aren’t that hard and the positives of creating a program focused on helping our poorest residents should be pretty easy to explain.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I disagree that “universal healthcare is just an obviously stupid idea.” If you meant universal health insurance (i.e. mandated coverage) then I’d agree.
Universal healthcare, i.e. making sure everyone has access to and can afford a basic level of healthcare services, is a wonderful idea. But mandating insurance coverage is not the way to do it. A single-payer system that allows for a mix of private sector and government-run health care providers seems like a good idea to me.
Comment by Don — January 17, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Don,
The poor need to be taken care of and government is well placed to do that. The rest of us should take responsibility for our own healthcare just like we take responsibility for putting food on our tables and roofs over our heads.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — January 17, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
“The poor need to be taken care of and government is well placed to do that.”
What do you suggest?
I think a single-payer system is taking responsibility for our own healthcare. It’s really not much different than paying into a collective insurance plan; it’s just that the collective is the entire nation. Plus, the “poor” are taken care of by default; no need to figure out what to do for them.
Comment by Don — January 17, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
How about health savings accounts to pay for the small stuff and vouchers for catastrophic insurance coverage for the big stuff.
Your proposal makes me responsible for the health of not only myself and my family but any stranger willing to put their health at risk for any reason. Thats an obviously stupid idea Don. Your idea leads to the government mandating certain lifestyles in order to minimize costs to me and my family. I don’t want that. I want to be responsible for myself and my family and I want to let my smoking/drinking/skydiving neighbor who refuses to wear a seatbelt be responsible for himself.
Like I said…pretty obvious stuff.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — January 17, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
You’re a real joy to talk to Jeremy. I guess I’m obviously stupid, huh?
How would it be if we taxed things like cigarettes and alcohol and skydiving, etc. and used the proceeds to offset the costs of injuries and illnesses due to such things? Duh . . .
Comment by Don — January 18, 2008 @ 12:08 am
BTW, HSAs are an obviously stupid option for the poor. How is anyone supposed to put money into an HSA when they can hardly put food on the table?
Hey, wait, here’s an idea that might work. Why don’t we give everyone a $10000 tax credit when they buy health insurance? No, that’s obviously stupid too. If someone can’t afford to buy insurance in the first place, how is a tax credit going to help?
Now, the voucher thing might not be a bad idea, but why don’t we just do single-payer instead and cut out the middle man? Why do insurance companies need to make money on the deal?
Comment by Don — January 18, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Don,
Lots of brilliant people sometimes support stupid ideas. I supported the war in Iraq for a few years. If you’d like to remain offended though by all means thats your right. If I have to come out and say “Don, I don’t think your stupid…I love nearly everything you write and highly respect your opinion even when I think you’re espousing stupid ideas.” than consider it said.
I think the government should butt out of our lives. Taxes used to regulate behavior aren’t a good option. It shouldn’t be any of my business that my neighbor participates in risky activities. If he breaks his neck skydiving he should figure out a way to get by. My family shouldn’t have to bear an increased tax burden to pay for his recovery.
Sorry…I should have added that the HSA should be funded with taxpayer money. It would be a welfare program.
Why does it always have to be all or nothing with those who want to socialize healthcare? We need to create incentives that will lead to less misuse of our healthcare system not a blanket garantee that the government will be there to take care of us no matter what dumb choices we make. Yeah Don…I think it is a stupid idea.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — January 18, 2008 @ 6:51 am
If you’d like to remain an offensive debater, by all means, please do so. Calling something “obviously stupid” when it is clearly debatable one way or the other is not very persuasive in the long run. If you want to say something’s stupid, fine, but maybe you should plan on backing it up rather than just saying it’s “obvious”. So far, it still isn’t obvious to me that single-payer couldn’t work and you’re not helping to get me there.
Government funded HSAs are a possible solution. But I’ll ask again, why don’t we cut out the middle man? I don’t think my taxes need to go toward furthering the profits of
murder by spreadsheetinsurance companies.Comment by Don — January 18, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Okay, I’m thinking about your comment about taxes regulating behavior and to a certain extent, I agree. I don’t want the government involved in my life any more than you do. So, under a single-payer system, some things will be excluded from coverage, right? Let’s stay with your example of skydiving and say that injuries caused by skydiving accidents are not covered. This is where private insurance can step in. Skydivers could purchase “accident insurance” which would kick in if they are injured while skydiving. That way, only those participating in the risky activity are bearing the costs.
I think this could work for some activities while a tax, such as on cigarettes, would be fine for others. I’m curious though, you seem to have a pretty libertarian take on this. Are you in favor of legalizing drugs? I am, but I think they should be highly regulated and taxed.
Comment by Don — January 18, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Don,
I think your idea of “accident insurance” for skydivers or others who participate in risky behavior is a great way of mitigating my complaints about what we’d be stuck with under government run healthcare if it comes to that…but what about other risky behaviors? Do we provide heart attack insurance for junk food addicts? What about couch potatoes? Who will monitor people with more promiscuous lifestyles who tend to have more STDs? Under single payer I as a taxpayer gain a financial interest in lobbying government to regulate all of these behaviors because I’m helping pay the medical bills for people who participate in them.
Single payer isn’t getting rid of the middleman it is just changing who that middleman is.
There isn’t any reason for me to get stuck helping to pay my neighbor’s medical bills if they are capable of paying them. I’m not saying we don’t need to change the way things are being done now. I just think turning the whole system over to government and the taxpayers doesn’t eliminate the problem we have now of inefficient incentives for patients in our healthcare system. If anything I think it will make things worse. Is that more diplomatic than calling the idea stupid?
Yeah…I’m pretty libertarian. I am in favor of legalizing drugs and agree with you that some regulation is probably necessary. By the way…legalization of drugs could contribute greatly to lowering medical costs too! If I didn’t need to go to the doctor to get a prescription for my baby’s hydrocortisone cream or allergy medicines I’d be saving healthcare resources for others who really need them!
Comment by Jeremy Manning — January 18, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Technical note:
I’m not sure why some comments from people who’ve commented here before are still going into moderation. If you’ve had a comment approved before Wordpress should let any future comments from your IP through without holding them for moderation. I’m looking into the problem on my end. Sorry for the hassle.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — January 18, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Don,
You make a good point about the poor potentially not being able to afford even a Health Savings Account. Help does need to be provided for this segment of the population. However, although there are several other reasons that health care costs in the US are high (litigiousness, pharmaceutical tycoons, etc.), a big one is over-regulation by government. We need to get government pretty much out of the health care business. Then costs will go down, and then not only will you and I be able to afford an HSA (I’d probably have $10k per year extra income if I could have an HSA where I work), but so will a lot more people.
And for those who don’t it will be much easier to help them get what they need.
Comment by Frank Staheli — January 18, 2008 @ 2:57 pm