Conservative Solutions Part 3: Trusting the American People on Health Care
There's a very basic but profound difference between liberals and conservatives and it is this: liberals believe they can run your lives better than you can; and conservatives believe in the power and ingenuity of the American people. In other words, they don't trust you; and we do.
How do I know this? Well, let's start with a look at the biggest of many elephants currently in the room: health care. It goes without saying that health care in America is not as efficient and cost-effective as it can be. Barack Obama will say that only the Democrats recognize this, and that conservatives would just prefer we do nothing. That is a boldfaced lie.
So what kind of issues are we facing in our current system? First, employer-based insurance is an albatross around the necks of small businesses throughout the United States. Why? The cost to employers increases by about 15% each year. In conjunction with that rising cost, small business are summarily charged higher premiums than large businesses. Prices are artificially increased by the lack of intrastate competition. Reckless malpractice lawsuits are driving up costs that are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Uninsured people get emergency room treatment, which is prohibitively expensive for routine medical care. There are others, but this is a good starting point for a comparison on how liberals and conservatives wish to deal with the problem.
The great liberal plan is not to foster competition to drive down costs; it's not to curb reckless malpractice claims; it's not to allow companies to pursue insurance across state lines, like we can do with car insurance. No. Their plan is to increase federal regulation, which always increases costs with dubious claims of increased efficiency, and to create a nationalized health care system along the lines of Canada or England. They won't tell you that's their goal. They'll say, "We just want to create a government-sponsored alternative to compete with the private sector." That sounds pretty reasonable on its face, until you dig deeper and find the ugly reality. An alternative to the private sector that is funded completely by the American taxpayer and the Treasury printing presses will skew the entire system. This alternative will face no market-based pressures to keep costs down naturally, but rather will have the full force of the federal government to set whatever prices they deem appropriate and therefore force the private insurance company out of business. This isn't a slippery slope. It's a mudslide into disaster. The systems in Canada and England are virtually bankrupt; care is rationed by bureaucrats; people die waiting in line for necessary procedures and tests; taxation is oppressive. That is the truth that Obama and his cronies are trying to hide in the smooth, used car salesman way they're so good at. But we're not buying it this time.
The conservative approach is much simpler and will actually bring down costs and keep the federal government away from this massive illegal venture.
1) Provide a real alternative by allowing employees to disconnect from the employer-based plan, find their own affordable care, and give them the generous tax deduction that corporations get.
2) Allow intrastate purchasing of health insurance plans. This will naturally bring down costs by increasing competition (a natural, iron-clad proven benefit of the law of supply and demand).
3) Malpractice liability reform to curb jury awards at a reasonable level; combined with aggressive, punitive, progressive sanctions for people who file frivolous lawsuits (frivolous can be defined clearly in the law).
4) Create a more robust, state-level free clinic program. This can be accomplished by state funding; incentivizing hospitals to donate current equipment and medicines; incentivize doctors coming out of the top schools to participate in providing pro bono care at these clinics by giving generous tax deductions each year for 5 years in order to help offset the crippling costs of medical school. This will also help allay the costs of the free care that illegal aliens are already receiving, which American citizens oftentimes go bankrupt trying to repay.
5) Allow small businesses to bind together in contract in order to get the costs that large businesses get.
So let's review. The liberal plan is to create another DMV, only worse because it will be run by the federal government as opposed to the states, that determines what care you can receive and when you will receive it. Also, it will have the added "benefit" to liberals of making you more dependent on government as well as bankrupting the nation. As they try to sell you this absolute monstrosity, they'll claim that we don't have any ideas and that we're not coming to the table with anything except the word "no," while they snake-charm everyone into thinking they can manage this better than they can Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all on the imminent verge of bankruptcy. The wellspring of liberal lies never ends.
In contrast, the conservative plan is real reform designed to give you, the American people, more control over your health care at cheaper costs with greater inherent efficiency.
In other words, they don't trust you. We do.
How do I know this? Well, let's start with a look at the biggest of many elephants currently in the room: health care. It goes without saying that health care in America is not as efficient and cost-effective as it can be. Barack Obama will say that only the Democrats recognize this, and that conservatives would just prefer we do nothing. That is a boldfaced lie.
So what kind of issues are we facing in our current system? First, employer-based insurance is an albatross around the necks of small businesses throughout the United States. Why? The cost to employers increases by about 15% each year. In conjunction with that rising cost, small business are summarily charged higher premiums than large businesses. Prices are artificially increased by the lack of intrastate competition. Reckless malpractice lawsuits are driving up costs that are ultimately passed on to the consumer. Uninsured people get emergency room treatment, which is prohibitively expensive for routine medical care. There are others, but this is a good starting point for a comparison on how liberals and conservatives wish to deal with the problem.
The great liberal plan is not to foster competition to drive down costs; it's not to curb reckless malpractice claims; it's not to allow companies to pursue insurance across state lines, like we can do with car insurance. No. Their plan is to increase federal regulation, which always increases costs with dubious claims of increased efficiency, and to create a nationalized health care system along the lines of Canada or England. They won't tell you that's their goal. They'll say, "We just want to create a government-sponsored alternative to compete with the private sector." That sounds pretty reasonable on its face, until you dig deeper and find the ugly reality. An alternative to the private sector that is funded completely by the American taxpayer and the Treasury printing presses will skew the entire system. This alternative will face no market-based pressures to keep costs down naturally, but rather will have the full force of the federal government to set whatever prices they deem appropriate and therefore force the private insurance company out of business. This isn't a slippery slope. It's a mudslide into disaster. The systems in Canada and England are virtually bankrupt; care is rationed by bureaucrats; people die waiting in line for necessary procedures and tests; taxation is oppressive. That is the truth that Obama and his cronies are trying to hide in the smooth, used car salesman way they're so good at. But we're not buying it this time.
The conservative approach is much simpler and will actually bring down costs and keep the federal government away from this massive illegal venture.
1) Provide a real alternative by allowing employees to disconnect from the employer-based plan, find their own affordable care, and give them the generous tax deduction that corporations get.
2) Allow intrastate purchasing of health insurance plans. This will naturally bring down costs by increasing competition (a natural, iron-clad proven benefit of the law of supply and demand).
3) Malpractice liability reform to curb jury awards at a reasonable level; combined with aggressive, punitive, progressive sanctions for people who file frivolous lawsuits (frivolous can be defined clearly in the law).
4) Create a more robust, state-level free clinic program. This can be accomplished by state funding; incentivizing hospitals to donate current equipment and medicines; incentivize doctors coming out of the top schools to participate in providing pro bono care at these clinics by giving generous tax deductions each year for 5 years in order to help offset the crippling costs of medical school. This will also help allay the costs of the free care that illegal aliens are already receiving, which American citizens oftentimes go bankrupt trying to repay.
5) Allow small businesses to bind together in contract in order to get the costs that large businesses get.
So let's review. The liberal plan is to create another DMV, only worse because it will be run by the federal government as opposed to the states, that determines what care you can receive and when you will receive it. Also, it will have the added "benefit" to liberals of making you more dependent on government as well as bankrupting the nation. As they try to sell you this absolute monstrosity, they'll claim that we don't have any ideas and that we're not coming to the table with anything except the word "no," while they snake-charm everyone into thinking they can manage this better than they can Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are all on the imminent verge of bankruptcy. The wellspring of liberal lies never ends.
In contrast, the conservative plan is real reform designed to give you, the American people, more control over your health care at cheaper costs with greater inherent efficiency.
In other words, they don't trust you. We do.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home