« Jon Corzine: A Fool And His Money | Main | There's Just No Pleasing Some People... »

White House Admits Government Health Care Will Crowd Out Private Insurance Companies

All this time, Obama and his big government health care allies have been repeating the line that a government run option was a necessity to keep health insurance companies accountable by providing much-needed competition. The White House completely ignores the fact that vast amounts of competition can be unleashed by forcing the insurance companies to compete nationally across state lines. To them, the only acceptable form of competition is big government.

Those of us who have been fighting a government takeover of health care have been predicting that a government option, which the White House is now calling exchanges, will crowd out private competition as the government, not beholden to making a profit, undercuts the private insurance companies through significantly lower premiums.

Today the White House is finally admitting that we have been right all along. Keen-eyed Mark Impomeni at Red State picked up on a point the White House made (probably inadvertently) that tells us the White House expects the government run health care entity will crowd out private insurance companies:

Undocumented immigrants would be able to buy insurance in the non-exchange private market, just as they do today. That market will shrink as the exchange takes hold, but it will still exist and will be subject to reforms such as the bans on pre-existing conditions and caps.

It is pretty darn clear through this statement that the government expects to take over much of America's health care system. Remember when Obama said on Wednesday night that he expects only 5 percent of Americans will choose the government option? When the White House says it expects the private health insurance market to "shrink as the exchange takes hold," that tells us they expect more than just 5 percent of Americans to choose the government option. It also tells us that they aren't as interested in competition as they say they are. It also tells us that Rep. Joe Wilson was right in more ways than one.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (29)

They are already on record ... (Below threshold)

They are already on record wanting to kill private insurance. The MSM just ignores the evidence. For all their "research" ability, the MSM is unaware of You-Tube.

In addition to not needing to make a profit to survive, the government will also mandate that private insurers cover every possible disability and disease while demanding that they also cut the cost of their coverage. Not that it would drive them out of business or anything.

HR3200 already demands that... (Below threshold)
jim m:

HR3200 already demands that any plan cover medical, dental, optical and other expenses. No single insurer has a plan that covers all those. The bill is deliberately written to exclude all current plans from qualification.

The MSM will continue to cover for the administration since Dems are talking about tax exemptions and government funding for newspapers etc. Knowing that they stand to receive a huge government windfall if they play along guarantees that they will not speak out against Obama in any serious way.

I hope they censure Joe Wil... (Below threshold)

I hope they censure Joe Wilson and demand he apologize to Congress. I hope. I hope. I hope.

Two million concerned citiz... (Below threshold)

Two million concerned citizens marched on Washington today...now the "government" expects to control the health care in this country...well that can "expect" all they want. Will the Dim congressmen sacrifice their seats for Obama?... lots of posturing and big talk will spew forth, but in the end they won't. Who cares what the MSM does...the cat is out of the bag...and they can't put it back.

In case you misunderstood m... (Below threshold)

In case you misunderstood my sentiment about Joe Wilson. He has raised a million dollars since his call out to Obamalala's lie. I hope the liberal's do something stupid and censure him. It would guarantee his reelection. We need MORE Joe Wilson's in congress.

Only 5% will choose the gov... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Only 5% will choose the government option.

How many will be forced into it when their employers discontinue their private plans because the new government regulations make private insurance cost prohibitive for these employers?

I'll believe the 5% figure. I'll bet the percent that don't want the government plan, but are forced to participate anyway approaches 95% pretty quickly.

I also apologize for the l... (Below threshold)
wylie e. coyote - super genius:

I also apologize for the length of this post in advance but I think several in the conservative media are entirely missing the point on what is going on with the Obamacare plan and are attacking completely the wrong items.

I think from a strategic political perspective, we opponents of the Federal government takeover of Health Care are making a huge error by over focusing on the "government option". It will have to be dropped because its exclusion was a precondition for the support of the plan by the health insurance lobby. Right now, it is simply a huge diversionary ploy to keep the far left motivated and opponents of the plan distracted. The key provision that we need to be attacking are the individual/employer mandate provisions - the Obamacare scheme can survive the loss of the "government option" entitlement program but it can survive the loss of the Mandates.

Up front I would like to state that I don't believe that anyone on the Radical left who is pushing these proposals actually care or intend to improve medical care or reduce medical costs in this country since their plans would only make the current situation worse for everyone. Basically, this is a huge power grab by the radical left designed to alter the national political landscape permanently from center/right leaning to left leaning. The point of the whole thing is to get the Federal government calling the shots and paying the bills for health insurance in this country - basically they want to nationalize the Health Insurance industry. This will lead to a middle class that is dependent upon the government for health insurance which alter middle class voting patterns in much the way Welfare, Medicare and Social Security did for the poor and the elderly in this country after they were enacted. Basically, it will eliminate all possibility of genuine conservative governance in the future.

This is a very dangerous period because health Nationalization will still occur under Obamacare lite even without an overt government run insurance plan like this "public option" provision everyone keeps fixating on - everything else contained in the plan is just as dangerous and is not being discussed in any kind of a targeted manner.

There are two key points that conservatives in the media and Republicans who oppose this plan need to be focusing on right now. Obamacare is a "twofer" so to speak: Government Nationalization of Health Care and yet another Bailout for another failing big and politically connected Industry.

First, with or without an overtly government run program like the proposed "public option" plan, all the various Obamacare proposals in the end amount to Nationalization of the Health Care industry in this country by the Federal Government. Because the critical provisions place all the control over health care in this country in the hands of special interests, unelected technocrats, and politicians.

Here are the core elements what will be contained in the "health care reform compromise" after the so-called "public option" is in all likelihood dropped:

(a) Federal Regulation/Comparative Effectiveness Boards aka HEALTH CZAR/DEATH PANELS

(b) Employer/Individual Mandates aka GOVERNMENT CONTOLLED HEALTH INSURANCE

(c) Massive Government Subsidies aka MEDICAL WELFARE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS

With the Federal Government setting the rules, forcing everyone to participate, and is paying the bills for most of the middle class through subsidies how is this anything other than Nationalization?

Basically, the Federal government will be controlling the Health Insurance industry just like it controls the Banks and Auto Companies who received bailout money. While it will still technically be true that health insurance companies are "private" companies, they will be only in the same sense that GM, CITIGROUP, etc are still "private" companies. Since the Federal government has provided most of the funding and dictated all the terms of business, politicians and technocrats will really be calling the shots. Essentially, all health insurance companies in the country will be quasi-governmental agencies/utilities who can sell only what the government chooses to allow.

The second very disturbing aspect of the various Nationalization schemes that we have heard little or nothing at all about is how the Mandates contained in all the proposed plans basically amount to yet another government taxpayer bailout of another large and failing but politically connected "big" industry.

The market equity/investment portfolio of the major Health Insurance companies has dropped substantially over the past year with the recent stock/commodity market crash. Also, their current customer base is heavily skewed to the old and sick. 80 million of their 135 million customers are in the ages of 50-65 (LA Times). In effect, the Federal government will give them a veritable windfall of millions of new young and healthy customers who will be forced to buy high premium, government specified plans. Really, instead of "penalizing" the "evil" health insurance companies these Mandates would richly reward them and give them what amounts to a government sanctioned perpetual monopoly!

The bottom line for the American public under these proposals would be this: big government, big unions, big industry, the ultra rich and Washington beltway politicians benefit (are the "winners") and the young, elderly, and the American taxpayer get the short end of the stick yet again (the "losers") - they end up footing the bill for everything and get de facto socialized medicine! This whole so-called "health reform" is a short sighted and corrupt deal that is not in the long term best interest of the American people. And it will in all likelihood be shoved down our throats in blitzkrieg fashion once the "government option" is officially dropped if the leftist politicians in Washington get their way.

In political terms, it's my theory that the whole "public option" plan has simply been a massive diversion by the proponents of Obamacare to keep both far left supporters and opponents focused on something other than the critical elements of the plan - it was such an obvious path to socialized medicine it was guaranteed to attract intense focus on both sides of the issue. It was also a valuable "stick" used to keep the health insurance industry on board with the backroom deal cut last spring (it is the only provision that the health insurance industry objected to in the current Obamacare plan). Since it was predetermined that it would be dropped prior to the start of public debate, the administration needs to have sufficient plausibility to do so now and PRESTO massive public opposition! Hence the phony attack on health insurance executives and the "post office" remark (no, I don't think that was accidental) in order to be able to tell their hard-left supporters that they were "forced" to drop it. In the mean time, very few other elements of the plan have been focused on.

The essential components that now need to be focused and discussed are the Individual and Employer Mandate provisions. They are the glue that holds Obamacare together - without them the whole plan falls apart. These Mandates force everyone in the country into insurance plans that are designed by the Federal Government thus giving them control over everyone's choices. Mandates also fund the whole plan since they force young and healthy citizens to buy expensive policies that really don't need and probably won't use and employers to pay huge taxes for the subsidies.

I would strongly advocate that you stress to three very simple messages in in your discussions with other conservatives, independents, and Republicans:

(1) The Employer/Individual Mandates need to be opposed and need to be the center piece of the message (for the reasons I cite above) - they are the most politically unpopular feature of the Obamacare plan and they hold the whole scheme. Simply put, there is no government takeover without Mandates.

(2) Health Insurance Companies need to be called out for receiving Bailout money and a Monopoly Market - Health Insurance execs are politically unpopular and this would put the GOP/Opponents on the side of the people and not the special interests. We conservatives have a responsibility to defend the concept of insurance and free markets but not the current government and special interest distorted market.

(3) Obamacare is a corrupt barging that benefits big government, powerful Washington politicians, big union, and big companies/industry at the expense (once again) of the American taxpayer, small business, the elderly, and the young.

Particularly, Republican leaders and specific "blue dog" Democrats in the U.S. Senate need to understand this as many of the "compromise" plans being discussed contain all of these elements. They need to be forced to go on record as not only opposing the "government options" but these Employer/Individual Mandates too before they fall into the trap of thinking they are acceptable and not government run health care. Mandates to buy private insurance sound like a "free market" solution and "individual responsibility" but in this context they are not - they are simply a front for a government run system. Many conservatives can be easily fooled by this faux "private" front (Mitt Romney was) - there needs to be united Republican and Blue Dog Democratic opposition to Mandates now!

And what I have pointed out here are only a couple of the more obvious and onerous impacts. There are many, many, other impacts on our medical outcomes and medical care costs that have yet to be fully examined. There will also be huge impacts on our overall economy, society, and political culture that need to be examined as well.

For the sake of Liberty and freedom in this country Conservatives cannot let any of this structure in place. Due to the cascade of Middle Class entitlement dependence it would start, we would never have true conservative or representative government again. In Western Europe, the UK, and Canada all politics revolve around what the state can provide and who can best administer the Nanny state. In effect, they no longer have representative government - sovereignty has been effectively transferred from the people to the state. To get anything in life, you will have to go through politicians and special interests - that's not freedom that's dependence and control by a ruling elite. I have three young children and do not want them to grow up under that kind of political system.

that was 2 for 1It s... (Below threshold)

that was 2 for 1
It stated illegal aliens would recovered aka Undocumented immigrants and they would crowd out private insurance plus State Insurance, Do think private industry will be the only one to drop employees? MA and other system all ready look to federal government for help will drop theirs and use the federal plan,

Expose the head of t... (Below threshold)

Expose the head of the Hydra.. And the whole thing comes crumb bumbling down all about his extra large size ears..

As a matter of fact, his ears are so big, they could plan an 11 trillion dollar deficit and still think they were in vogue.

Talk about a self centered idjit.

THANK YOU, YOU GUYS ROCK!!!... (Below threshold)

THANK YOU, YOU GUYS ROCK!!! They're reporting about the millions of protesters in the Japanese papers with video and pictures. Also in the UK so far. You guys will be seen all over the world!!! What does our media do? Not much, what a bunch of traitors. They are going down. You guys are awesome!!

I see jacksmith has come ba... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

I see jacksmith has come back to post his little screed again. What is this Jack, at least the third posting for this on Wizbang isn't it? Actually, more I think.

Not that jack is going to talk to us, he just drops in and drops his little turd on us. Now, just in case he comes back to admire his work and read the comments that follow: Hey jack, you really need to work on your sentence structure. You also need to work on writing for comprehension. What you just posted here makes you look like an illiterate jackass. Do you care?

Could any of you out there ... (Below threshold)

Could any of you out there TOTALLY IN LOVE WITH THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES please explain why??? After all, these companies create no wealth; in a sense, they're basically just bookies doing their best to keep the odds in their favor. Year after year they've got a good racket, going up to potential customers and declaring, "Here's the bet: you get ill or hospitalized in the next year or so we pay you more money than you pay us, otherwise, you pay us more money than we pay you." Of course, if you do get hospitalized, they'll do they're damnedest to try to deny your claim.

The government can easily take over this bookie role with 1) no money squandered through making insurance executives millionaires, and 2) with far less overhead, and greater economies of scale. Why do you suppose that Canadians spend only half of their national wealth on a per capita basis on health care, and wind up living notably longer than do we? Ah, yes, I can just hear some of you now scouring the Internet looking for a few anecdotes of what you would decisively state is "health care rationing" in single-payer Canada. But of course, there's far more rationing that goes on in the U.S.: in Canada, all of its citizens are covered by health insurance, in the U.S., 15 percent (46 million people) are not.

Just about all other advanced industrialized nations (Canada, western Europe, etc.) have extensive federal involvement in health care. Among the countries having had extensive federal involvement, can you think of any, ANY AT ALL, that ever decided to end heavy federal involvement and set up a "U.S. type" system? I didn't think so.

jacksmith,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


It's not just because it will lower cost. Because a strong public option will dramatically lower cost for everyone. And dramatically improved the quality of care everyone receives in America and around the World. Rich, middle class, and poor a like.

Unfortunately, that's bull shit, plain and simple. Costs will skyrocket and bankrupt the nation.

It's not just because every expert in every field, including economist, and Nobel laureates all agree that free market based healthcare systems don't work. Never have and never will. The US has the only truly free market based healthcare system in the World. And as you all know now, IT IS A DISASTER!

It's not a free market system because consumers are isolated from providers. It could be a free market system, but first the public has to come to terms with the simple fact that, from a national perspective, healthcare has to be rationed.

I've explained in another post why rationing is needed and how to do it in a way that puts individuals in control and, for the first time, puts real free market pressure on healthcare providers. Such as system really would lower costs while increasing quality. Liberals don't like it because their real goal is to put government in control of our lives.

To those who would continue to obstruct good and true healthcare reform for the American people, and who seek to trap millions more vulnerable Americans in the forest of the wolves. We will continue to fight you. We are prepared to wage all out war against you, and will eagerly DESTROY! you. Time...is...UP! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! No Co-op's! No Triggers!

Now you're sounding like the dictator of Iran or NK threatening the U.S. with their few primitive nuclear weapons having forgot that the nation they threaten invented nuclear weapons. If you've been paying attention Democrats are increasingly being tied to out of control deficit spending and corruption. If Democrats press forward and pass such a bill they will insure their massive defeat in 2010 and 2012 and give Republicans a mandate to repeal such healthcare reform and create their own.

I therefore call on all my fellow Americans and the peoples of the World.

Calling on the peoples of the World to interfere with America's political process is a sure way to lose. Put down the Kool-Aid, you've drank way too much already.

Highlander,<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Could any of you out there TOTALLY IN LOVE WITH THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES please explain why???

Only insiders love insurance companies. Most people in this nation like their employer provided health insurance and that's why Obama keeps saying nothing will change for most people. Problem is, the facts are against Obama and people don't what to lose their ready and cheap access to healthcare.

Americans look at what has happened to healthcare in Canada, the UK, and much of Europe and see that these systems end up using the "long lines, long delays" method of rationing healthcare. Healthcare delayed is healthcare denied, and that's something the vast majority of Americans don't want to risk happening here.

There is a way to reform our healthcare system, but it requires separating the cost of healthcare from access to healthcare. It would take a true post partisan President to bring that about and Obama has proven he's not up to the task.

Now there's a stunner!... (Below threshold)

Now there's a stunner!

I mean, the White House admitting the truth about Obamacare, not that said truth includes the eventual squishing of all non-governmental "options" in the end. This whole thing has the stench of Marxism all over it, a la "Embrace Marxism? YES! WE! CAN!" at http://firebreathingchristian.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/embrace-the-marxist-rebellion-against-god-yes-we-can/

I have conservative ... (Below threshold)

I have conservative friends and associates that are Canadians. They call me and are appalled at our resistance to Obamalala's policies. Especially his desire to bless us all with universal health care. I scratch my head. One simple fact is that their population of around 30 million people is a totally different dynamic when compared to over 304 million. Then, when I talk about their health system being in serious trouble they scoff.
This article at AmericanThinker this morning gave me some insight as to why we think differently than even conservatives in Canada. Go to AT and read the whole article.

Frum's futile quest for a new conservatism
By J. R. Dunn
Canadians are not Americans. That's not to say there aren't similarities. With a majority of the population deriving from Northern Europe, a British cultural matrix, and Anglo-Saxon systems of law and government (excepting Quebec, Canada's wild card in all things), it couldn't be otherwise. Like the U.S., Canada was settled through mass immigration over an extended period, with a national character formed by the impact of the frontier. Canada is second only to the U.S. as a technological culture, rivaling us in scientific research and application. It could be said without much exaggeration that the U.S./Canada form a unique double culture.

But there are many differences as well. Canadians are subjects and not citizens, with a divergent view of the government-individual relationship. They have exhibited greater loyalty to the mother country than we ever did, actively fighting for British interests on several occasions beginning with the War of Independence. The Canadian character is cooler than ours. More patient and understanding on the one hand, more obedient and submissive on the other. A close friend who lived for many years in the UK told me that Britons tend to look on Americans as a nation of working-class louts, aggressive, loud-mouthed, and uncontrollable. In this formulation, Canadians would comprise a passive, polite, respectable lower-middle class.

Highlander- Sweden has been... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Highlander- Sweden has been debating ways to end their system and in Britain private clinics are opening up to take the place of government ones. The problem in these cases is that they are fee or service and there is no insurance to cushion the blow.

People in these countries do want out of their systems but cannot afford it because private insurance has been done away with.

Politicians in these nations just like everywhere are spineless cowards who are more interested in keeping their elected seats than they are in benefiting their own countrymen.

I have conservativ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I have conservative friends and associates that are Canadians. They call me and are appalled at our resistance to Obamalala's policies. Especially his desire to bless us all with universal health care. I scratch my head.

I expect that your conservative friends are relatively young and healthy. If so they probably haven't had too much experience with Canada's "long lines long delays" form of rationing for non-emergency services. Their opinion might change when they seek treatment for chronic conditions and run into Canada's frustrating and time consuming form of rationing.

Hey jacksmith - working cla... (Below threshold)

Hey jacksmith - working class and sockpuppet Highlander, why not take your trash over to DK where you will be praised for your insightful ruminations.

We're not buying your shit. And for the last time jacksmith - 85% of Americans are happy with their current health care. They are aware it can be made better, but they're not interested in your trash either.

I keep running across "jack... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

I keep running across "jacksmith" posting the same cut and paste in a variety of places. I guess he thinks he is persuasive. He is not. He quotes a SurveyUSA effort and describes it as a poll. It is not that at all. SurveyUSA has lifted about 5 questions from another poll and have attempted to spin that as some kind of proof. But, these are very high level questions with zero detail. The SurveyUSA effort is useless except to someone like Jack who won't take even the minimal time it would take to understand it.

JackSmith also misunderstands the AARP poll. The 86% favoring universal health care comes if and only if it is free. Jack conveniently leaves out things like this:

"Poll results indicated nearly 65 percent of those surveyed said they oppose increasing taxes to pay for covering the more than 46 million uninsured Americans, the business journal said. However, a majority polled said they believed all people should be covered and 73 percent said they are unwilling to see private health insurance
premiums rise to cover those costs."

In other words, this poll is as useless and the SurveyUSA poll and as worthless as JackSmith's posting.


Actually Mac Lorry, the Can... (Below threshold)

Actually Mac Lorry, the Canadian I have the most heated discussions with is in his late 60's. He worked in government as a conservative and in Canada's oil industry for many years. We cannot discuss politics anymore because his blood pressure goes through the roof. He is convinced that if we follow Obamalala we will be better off. Go figure. The article I mentioned above helped me understand where he is coming from. A little. A very little.

Actually Mac Lorry... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Actually Mac Lorry, the Canadian I have the most heated discussions with is in his late 60's.

Like you, I scratch my head.

Re: 7:I agree with W... (Below threshold)

Re: 7:
I agree with Wylie that we do the fight a disservice by concentrating on peripheral items (and bantering with obvious sock-puppets and trolls as above) while ignoring quite valid and strong arguments that resonate with the majority of voters in this country. Its time to really put our game on and ignore the other team's trash talking.

Mac (#15)
I disagree that we need to separate access from cost - a total separation, that is. We have access for urgent and emergency care through emergency rooms now, and chronic care through rural health clinics, Federally Qualified Health Centers, VA, IHS, etc. The manner of separation and the systems providing the access, however, are either suffering or causing suffering due to the reimbursement/management of money and lack thereof.

A fair share of the problem with health care cost escalation is due to the separation of money spent from the consumer - separating them even farther will only exacerbate the problem. It may sound cruel (and that is what liberals feed on, the cruelty of reality versus the SOMA of their fantasy), but there must be a sense of ownership and responsibility of the patient to the costs of their care to engender responsible use of health care resources (and life-style choices).

Another source of cost escalation is the unbalanced power of the ability to organize and bargain locally of various players in the health care system. As just one example, it is illegal for providers to organize and bargain with hospitals and other service providers who generally hold the money, access to equipment and so forth. Private practitioners find themselves competing on uneven ground with hospital-paid employed providers in small communities. This competition does not drive costs, down, but up.

"...but there must be a sen... (Below threshold)

"...but there must be a sense of ownership and responsibility of the patient to the costs of their care...."

Epador bite your tongue! Any liberal worth their salt would crucify you for suggesting anything like personal responsibility. After all, free health care is a "right"!

epador,I respect y... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


I respect your first hand experience in the healthcare system., so let my explain my idea and get your take on it.

Healthcare costs are driven by supply and demand, but in a reverse way. As the average age of our population increases so does the demand for healthcare. As medical science progresses it invents new treatments to satisfy health needs; in effect, increasing supply. Because every treatment received by a patient costs money, the total cost of healthcare is driven by the two fundamental forces of a increasingly older population and advances in science that create new treatments that then help the population get even older.

Looking around the world you'll find that no nation provides unlimited state-of-the-art healthcare to all it's people, at least not for long. Canada, the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, and other European nations use the "long lines, long delays" form of rationing. Cuba uses the non-availability of state-of-the-art healthcare as it's rationing system. The US uses company or individual cost as it's rationing system.

The key to reforming healthcare in the US is the public discovering and coming to terms with the fact that affordable healthcare is only possible if it's rationed. Once we do that we can design a rational rationing system and then it will be much easier to figure out how to pay for it.

I propose the "maximum lifetime healthcare credits" rationing system. At an overview level, under this system everyone is given some number of healthcare credits when they turn 18. Most people will get the same amount such as say two million credits. Initial there may be a 1 to 1 ratio between credits and dollars, but that can change over time. Every healthcare service and prescription drug available in the US would have a healthcare credit cost associated with it and publicly available. However that service or a drug is paid for, the individual receiving it is charged the credit price against their own account.

When a person exhausts their credits they either have to pay the cost of the treatment or drug, plus a 100% tax, out of their own pocket or go before a death panel to see if society deems their circumstances or contributions deserving of more credits. Veterans would be given some extra credits just for serving and treatments for service related conditions would be free of charge both money and health credits. Treatments for people under 18 wouldn't cost any credits. People with genetic conditions or existing injures would be given more credits when they turn 18 based on statistical analysis of lifetime healthcare needs for others with those conditions. Courts could also award credits to victims of crime or injury caused by someone else's negligence. When a person dies their remaining credits cease to exist.

The other 80 to 90 percent of the population would have only the credits they were given when they turned 18. Knowing this, most people would live a healthy lifestyle in order to preserve their credits for their old age. They would also shop for the best healthcare for the lowest credit price, and that would put real free market pressure on healthcare providers for the first time since health insurance became widespread. That would lower credit costs and also dollar costs by whatever ratio is set. There would be not need for private or government run managed care. There would be no need for government to restrict access under the "long lines, long delays" rationing system. It would allow wealthy people to buy extra healthcare, but in so doing, pay into the system for the benefit of others. It would give kids all the healthcare they need without any form of rationing. It would reward young people who are willing to serve in the military or maybe other public service like police and fire. But most of all. it puts individuals in control of their own healthcare.

Paying for healthcare then becomes a separate and easier task as it's only function is to collect and distribute money. The nation finally gains control of the total cost by how many credits it gives to individual and the credit-dollar ratio.

Unfortunately, a system that puts individual in control doesn't stand a chance of seeing the light of day in a liberal controlled media or government.

re: 26In a utopia... (Below threshold)

re: 26

In a utopian genteel society, maybe that would work.

In the USA, No Way Jose.

Sounds too much like another form of carbon credits, this would be a class rather than country struggle, with young stupid people selling their credits to someone else and later regretting it ;-)

The insurance pool idea is reasonable for covering unexpected and severe problems that affect a minority of the population. It is wrong to apply it for normal maintenance, as it ends up encouraging people to use the system more than they might otherwise be inclined to.

You also need to address disability and workman's comp, which are a significant portion of the problem.

Every day in my clinic I see at least several folks whose mission in life is to get disability for a back back, diabetic complications, or knee and live off the public dole the rest of their lives.

I also see hard working folks struggling to make ends meet, and not quite retired folks on limited incomes having to make choices about how to spend their time and money on health care.

I see a lot of very intelligent choices of use of the health care system in the later, and few in the former.

epador,So... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Sounds too much like another form of carbon credits, this would be a class rather than country struggle, with young stupid people selling their credits to someone else and later regretting it ;-)

I forgot to mention that the healthcare credits are non-transferable. There would be no trading or selling them, so there's no relation to carbon credits. Also, whatever credits a person still has when they die cease to exist.

The insurance pool idea is reasonable for covering unexpected and severe problems that affect a minority of the population. It is wrong to apply it for normal maintenance, as it ends up encouraging people to use the system more than they might otherwise be inclined to.

What insurance pool? Under the healthcare credit system people would avoid using the healthcare system in order to keep their credits.

You also need to address disability and workman's comp, which are a significant portion of the problem.

I did mention that some people would get more credits when they turn 18 based on their health. I also mentioned that courts could award more credits to victims of crime or negligence.

Every day in my clinic I see at least several folks whose mission in life is to get disability for a back back, diabetic complications, or knee and live off the public dole the rest of their lives.

No healthcare system is going to solve that problem.

I also see hard working folks struggling to make ends meet, and not quite retired folks on limited incomes having to make choices about how to spend their time and money on health care.

The healthcare credit system would help if not eliminate that problem, because once cash is not the rationing system there would be cash enough in the system for all people who still have healthcare credits in their accounts.

The big news is that patients are going to be able to shop for healthcare as individuals and that will put free market forces on providers to cut their costs. Maybe doctors won't like such a system.

I just wonder where these i... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

I just wonder where these idiots we call lawmakers get the idea they can take my money to pay for someone elses stuff. If I want to be dictated to by government, I will move to Cuba. If you want health care insurance. Go get a job and buy it. I consider it illegitimate for government to try to force this on us and if they pass it, I will consider that government illegitimate. Maybe many more of us need to go to Washington and not go to the Captital but the White House. Let the President know we do not want his help.

Glorious Leader,I ... (Below threshold)

Glorious Leader,

I have an idea for your consideration.

Why not initiate health care by executive decree--and this is the good part--disband that boorish congress. No one is interested in their tedium. There is a reason C-span never gets in the ratings. We are all exhuased by their antics of pretending that they matter. Disband them, and let them be the model case for your plan. There could be study commisiions and reality TV. I think all would appreciate Mr Frank trying to get dentures or Ms Boxer a lapband. It could run 24/7. The masses would be truly entertained, and you would not have to pretend to be compromised.

There is one part of your speech that I did not understand--foregive my inabiltiy to comprehend your illustriousness. Why would the ancient noncontributors cherish dealth by medicare, but not want to be part of Your Gloriousness? Why would they not want to contribute to your Glorious Vision?

As for my idea--please remember me, cast me some crumb as your angelic whim dictactes.

As always--your faithful servant.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy