With Congress and the President seriously considering passing a bill for Government Healthcare, I’ve been pleasantly surprised to see how many people—including former Obama supporters—come out against this policy. However, I’m also unpleasantly surprised as to how many people still support Government Healthcare. In discussions with the supporters, I’ve noticed they have little concept of what Government Healthcare will actually be. They think it will be the same healthcare system we have now, but at no (or much lower) cost to the patient—which is incorrect.
To understand the difference between what Government Healthcare actually is versus what it is perceived to be, consider this simple analogy:
You are 12 years old and having Christmas Dinner with your entire extended family (grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc). The group is discussing having a family reunion at Disney World the upcoming summer. Although everyone is excited about the idea, several of the individual families say they are out of vacation money—including your parents. In turn, a few lower priced options are then discussed in hopes that everyone will be able to go. But your rich Uncle Samuel overhears the conversation and offers to pay for everyone’s trip. An uproar of excited follows and just as you start to daydream about cruising down the big drop on Splash Mountain and hearing Jiminy Cricket host the nightly fireworks show, you notice your father looks dissatisfied with the situation.
On the drive home, you ask your dad if you guys can take the trip. He says “No. As I said earlier, we don’t have the money right now”. You implore, “But what about rich Uncle Samuel’s offer to pay?!” Your dad then tells you that rich Uncle Samuel’s offer probably is not as good as it sounds and that he isn’t sure how rich Uncle Samuel intended to pay. He warns that there could be conditions and stipulations for surrendering the financing to rich Uncle Samuel. You demand clarification. Your father presents four options that rich Uncle Samuel could take to pay for the trip:
Option 1
You go to Disney World and have a great time. You stay at the coolest hotel; you go to all of the parks (with park hopping option), all of the water parks, watch the fireworks every night, and you get to eat a lot of ice cream. When you get home, you send rich Uncle Samuel the bill. He takes care of everything. Your dad adds that though this sounds like perfect option; it will not be the case.
Option 2
You still get to go to Disney World, but in order for rich Uncle Samuel to pay, you are only allowed to go to two of the four parks, no park hopping, no water parks, you have to pick one of the hotels off Disney property, you don’t get any ice cream, and you are required to bring back several souvenirs for rich Uncle Samuel’s golf buddies—which requires a full day out of the park riding to several strip-mall souvenir shops. This isn’t the best option, but still a free trip to Disney World.
Option 3
You get to go to Disney but Uncle Samuel’s greedy lawyer is planning the entire trip—you have no say-so at all. You’ll most likely only be able to go to one park, only ride a few rides (no roller coasters – too much liability), no water parks, you can’t pick the hotel and fear it will be far down Hwy 192, deep in Kissimmee/St. Cloud. (What Travis and I have named “Ghetto Disney”. Trust me; it’s not a nice area). The lawyer might even screw up the whole plan and just send you to Gatorland instead of going to Disney at all. You’re starting to understand your dad’s hesitation and realize this might be a terrible deal.
Option 4
Your Uncle buys a crappy swing set and builds a few see-saws (with many splinters) in his back yard and hangs a sign above them that says “Disney World”.
Option 4 is Government Healthcare
Option 1 is what the general public thinks “Universal Healthcare” would be—though this isn’t the case. Option 2 is our current system—that is, partially self-determined but heavily regulated. Option 3 is what the president and congress have actually proposed as a plan. However, even though they lack the foresight and understanding to recognize the inevitable, Option 3 would become Option 4 once put in practice.
Option 1: You decide – someone else pays
Just like you got to go to Disney World and plan your own vacation, with this healthcare plan, everyone gets to pick their own doctor/specialist and those who cannot afford the service merely bill back the government—who pays in full. Sounds great right?
The most important point to understand about Universal Healthcare is that “Option 1” is not a blueprint for any models that are under current consideration (or have ever been under consideration) by the president/congress. It is an error, or more accurately a fantasy, for supporters of Universal Healthcare to support such a plan as if it were a legitimate political proposal. If you have supported Universal Healthcare because this has been your impression of what would be implemented, the only honest response is to change your view.
Option 2: Share your personal costs; share your personal authority
The most interesting—and important—point about this option: it is our current system. That is, this is the how healthcare in the U.S. operates right now. It is an inefficient, heavily regulated system. Federal, state, and local governments all have laws and regulations that affect the delivering and receiving of healthcare—which is why healthcare costs are so high.
Just like the “Option 2” for the Disney trip, you do not have total authority over your healthcare decisions. You still have some control, but the government and your insurance provider (who receives their power from the government) greatly influence which doctors you can see, which medicines you can take, and the procedures through which you receive care. In many cases, they not only influence, but determine these factors completely.
When formulating this analogy, I thought it was especially important to integrate this option because it is a real-world example of how Option 3 automatically becomes Option 4. It provides verifiable data that we are already experiencing increased healthcare costs and decreased personal authority due to government involvement in our healthcare. There is no indication that adding more government would reverse the trend. Furthermore, there has never been a case of anything in life becoming cheaper once the government gets involved…ever. 0% is an overwhelming statistic.
Option 3 becomes 4: If the government pays, the government decides
Under this system, the government controls all healthcare operations—this includes dictating what procedures doctors can perform and on whom they will be preformed. The government will make the decision regarding whether or not your medical needs are worth the money it will cost to provide them to you.
Of course, no one would ever intend for this to be our healthcare system…but, as Option 3—which sucked to start with—quickly unraveled into an even worse Option 4, this is what it would become regardless: a giant government web of regional hospitals and local doctor facilities where you are assigned to a doctor or specialist —not as a person, but a social security number. Doctors would have no personal attachment to their patients; the best doctors would leave the industry; patients couldn’t leave their doctors if they were dissatisfied with their care; medicines and medical equipment would be judged not on merit, but on the political influence of pharmaceutical suppliers and manufactures; the list could go on…
It is important to understand that this is not some exaggerated dystopian scenario; it is actually what would become and what is becoming of healthcare—as has every government operation. A simple illustration of this is public education. Once the government took over the responsibility of financing education, it immediately took over the content of education—and the government is now the lone decision maker on what educational content will be delivered to American students. As a product, more citizens enter the public education system, but more exit the system uneducated. Government “Healthcare” will be no different. More people will enter the system…fewer people will exit—literally.
All gold the government touches turns to lead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

4 comments:
So what do you propose we do to fix the current corrupt system? Surely you aren't going to argue that the system, as it is now, is working? It is admittedly (by ALL) very flawed, much more flawed than Disney World in your Scenario. And if you think it isn't, then you haven't had a serious illness, be it with or without insurance.
anonymous, thanks for commenting. i have a follow-up post that i hope to put online by the end of this week/middle of next week that addresses your questions. i especially criticize the source of corruption in the current system--a government protected monoply for doctors, specialists, and insurance companies to charge outrageous prices for their services. as i indicated in my comments in "option 2", i think it is an extremely flawed system.
I will anxiously await your next post then. I did see that you agree our current system is flawed, but it would seem you find it less flawed than Obama's proposed change. I'm not sure yet whether I agree or disagree, I think both have problems and dangers. However, I am sick and tired of all the complaints about Obama's changes, but no one has other ideas...just arguments. In addition, people complain about how swiftly he wants to enact those changes, yet any other time, people complain at how SLOW the government is to make changes. Of course, we should all remember, this isn't a swift change at all, but 40+ years in the making...it's about time. So while I don't disagree with you necessarily, I would just like to see more discussion about what SHOULD be done rather than what SHOULDNT.
Hey Jay,
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I admit I don't have time to read it quite as thoroughly as I'd like right now, but I scanned it and am fairly sure I get your point.
So, what I think: We paid a lot of money to go to war in Iraq on a false premise that a lot of progressives knew was a lie and it took the conservatives a few years to admit that yea, Bush was lying. There were no WMD.
At the same time we passed a tax cut for the richest Americans. What happened? In 2008 the system crashed because of excess wrought by the very people who received the massive Bush tax cut. Yet somehow Fannie and Fredie and ACORN were the *REAL* reason for the collapse.. I'm calling a spade a spade: Sharecropping is sharecropping.
So, talking about health care specifically, it seems ingenuous to say that money, of all things, is the reason to hold back. Seriously. Money was no option when we were threatened with WMD. Money was no option when the richest among us 'deserved' the biggest tax cut in history.
If it makes you feel better, think of it as a progressive clawback to that I'll conceived, I'll executed, ILL Communication!! we call the Bush tax cut: http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm956.cfm
See the forest for the trees. Long term national interest trumps short term personal interest. Every Time. Isn't that why we have a military? Isn't that why we 'united' to declare independence?
It's a moral outrage that the richest country on earth can't provide healthcare to over 40 million of its citizens. I would think Republicans would be a bit more circumspect when criticizing Democrats after 8 years of NOT figuring out a way to insure those 40 million. Apparently market forces weren't powerful enough to keep the invisible hand from strangling competition in city after city.
So, my opinion: Disneyworld? How quaint! They were bought by Wallyworld YEARS ago..
Post a Comment