There’s a whole lot of assumption going around when it comes to what’s going to happen with healthcare reform, or more specifically, HR3200 as introduced in July 2009.
The Heritage Foundation recently posted a blog under the subtitle “TOP 10 REASONS WHY OBAMACARE IS WRONG FOR AMERICA”, which naturally intrigued me. Finally! I get some solid information as to what the arguments are AGAINST HR3200! After all, it’s always important to weigh both sides of an issue carefully before making any decision, and to continually do so AFTER making said decision to re-affirm whether it remains the correct one.
So let’s take a look at a few of the points raised, one by one, and see what makes sense. I’d cover all ten, but I really don’t want to take up your entire day with my level of verboseness. If you think I SHOULD go back and cover the other points, feel free to let me know and perhaps I’ll take it further in another post at a later date.
“1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story”
Maybe so, but there’s a lot of assumption in both this statement, and in the single analysis referenced in the article, which was performed by the Lewin Group, a company that is a part of Ingenix, Inc., which provides “software, data and consulting services to pharmaceutical companies, health insurers and other payers, physicians and other health care providers, large employers and governments”, and is also a subsidiary of United Health Group. According to it’s website, “unitedhealthgroup.com”, United Health Group operates it’s own health insurance company as well as several other companies providing healthcare-related services. UHG reported revenues of $21.7 Billion in it’s FEC filing on 7/27/2009, so they’re clearly doing well on the current healthcare system.
I believe it’s important to know things like this, not to immediately discard what is being said, but to raise the awareness of natural “spin” that is likely to occur when somebody has a vested interest, especially a FINANCIAL interest, in the outcome of a change.. government or otherwise.
Ok, so the first thing about this that strikes me as false about the statement made above, is the basic fact that they’re making a statement as fact, that simply cannot be done without super-human knowledge of the future. While the author could very well be a psychic or prophet the likes of which the world has never seen, it is much more likely that he/she is trying to give you the IMPRESSION that their words are 100% absolutely correct and thus, implying that you should receive them as such. In their perfect world, you wouldn’t bother to do your own research, because clearly they have already done the hard work for you and therefore MUST be correct in their conclusions.
Yeah, umm… we don’t do that here.
What assumptions are they making when drawing this conclusion? The Lewin report states a number of times that they rely heavily on the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM) when creating their scenario, so why can’t that be trusted implicitly?
Because, my dear readers, to draw conclusions on any model, you have to make assumptions (like the assumption that the HBSM used is the same as that used by the Congressional Budget Office). The key assumptions made here that renders the data near meaningless, are these:
ASSUMPTION #1: While private health insurance companies will alter their coverage to suit federal mandate, they will not make any further improvements to their coverage and services to remain competitive vs. the “public option”.
- Does this make sense to you? Both the “public option” and the private insurance companies will be held accountable to the same rules. Isn’t it natural in a capitalist society for a company to focus their attention on factors that differentiate themselves from their competition? Would that not be the same here?
- Naturally, if no changes are made on the part of the private insurance companies to differentiate their services from the “public option”, then people will choose to go where they get the most value for their dollar.
ASSUMPTION #2: If a private health insurance company finds itself unable or unwilling to compete, and goes out of business. People who lose their existing health insurance as a result will ALWAYS choose the “public option”.
- This could be true, but ONLY if the “public option” is providing more value for the dollar over the private insurance companies. If other private insurance companies are providing better value over the “public option”, then it’s entirely likely that at least SOME people will simply switch to another private insurance plan.
Make sense? Am I way off base with my logic here? Ok, let’s move on to the next “reason” why “Obamacare” a.k.a. healthcare reform is wrong for America, according to the article.
“2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway”
More assumptions here, particularly worries that the cost of private insurance companies implementing changes to conform to new federal benefit standards will most likely result in high premiums for you, the consumer.
This is actually not entirely wrong. With HR3200, the private insurance companies WOULD need to make changes to conform to new standards, such as not excluding people based upon prior medical history, not dropping coverage when great medical need arises, and other shady practices that are performed today. It is, however, entirely up to the private insurance companies as to whether or not they want to reduce their BILLIONS in profits to fund said changes, or if they want to pass the cost on to the consumer in the form of increased premiums.
The difference here, is the consumer will have a choice. Again, it will ultimately come down to which provider, public or private, provides the best value for the consumer’s dollar. If you want to keep your current healthcare provider/coverage, but they decide to increase your premiums, then yes, you might want to re-evaluate how much “bang for the buck” you’re getting from your provider. This is not unlike your internet provider, your bank, or even which online video game you choose to play. Your provider has important decisions to make, the result of which may in-fact, impact you and your coverage, for better or for worse. While nobody can guarantee that the provider will do the fair and reasonable thing, you can at least be assured that you’ll have other options, both in terms of other private insurance companies that DO choose to provide real value to their customers, and the “public option”.
“3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman”
It is assumed/implied that because the federal government controls one of the competitor plans, that they have an unfair advantage over private insurance companies that will eventually push them out of business. While I could say that IF the government started making rules that apply specifically to private insurance companies and do not apply to the public plan, that in some way “tips the scales of fairness”, then we could be talking about a legitimate concern here. As of right now, in HR3200 as it stands, I’m not seeing this happening. Could it ever happen? Sure! Which is why we need to continue to PAY ATTENTION to what our congressional representatives are doing on our behalf. The government could do a lot of bad things, like mysteriously “losing” $13 BILLION in Iraq. Things that don’t help our economy #103. In fact, they already do both good and bad, so PAY ATTENTION, and SPEAK UP.
“4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment”
No. No they do not, and as the bill stands right now, no they WILL not. The article refers to this statement pulled out of context, made by President Obama, “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.”
From what I’m reading, President Obama is referring to logical sense and responsibility. He’s not saying that the GOVERNMENT is going to explicitly force healthcare providers to choose specific treatments. He’s saying that people, including healthcare providers, need to be able to evaluate the options available and determine the most cost-effective option for their situation.
It seems to me that the article is drawing an unreasonable conclusion from an out-of-context soundbite. There is nothing in HR3200 that says the government will get in the way of you and your doctor when it comes to making decisions about your health and well-being.
..and finally..
“5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes”
Hey, the Republican argument! It actually does sound like a solid fundamental point, doesn’t it? The only problem is that the facts don’t lead to this actually being the case at all. If “Liberty” means not having to contribute to paying towards the cost of healthcare for those who cannot afford it, then yes, you’ll have less Liberty. Of course, it does seem to be balanced out about giving citizens MORE options when it comes to healthcare providers and coverages, beyond that which is offered by your employer, which I’m fairly certain anybody could look at as being a big Liberty INCREASE, yes?
As far as “More Taxes” are concerned, the vast majority of this is going to apply to individuals making over $1,000,000 per year. Think about that. Does it apply to you? Maybe it does, I don’t know. When it comes to these things, I tend to look at like this. When you make over one million dollars per year, taking a hit in taxes is not going to break the bank. It might reduce the amount of investment you can make, or the amount of “things” you can purchase, or maybe even how much interest you earn on savings.. but it will not cause you to lose your home. It will not cause you to be unable to feed your family. It will not cause you to be unable to afford reliable transportation.
For many families well below that $1 million income line.. a larger tax burden WILL impact them in such negative ways.
Keep that in mind.
* Full text of the H3200 bill: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
