March 1, 2010; March 15, 2010

Undesired Bill and Misleading Questions

One question that is often asked in the health care debate is why a rich nation can't afford health care for all of its citizens. This question, I propose, is misleading. When one considers all the emergency rooms and doctors and hospitals who are willing to perform treatment for reduced fees or even pro bono, the question becomes not just misleading, but an arrogant slap in the face to professionals who serve the people of our communities.

Similarly, to speak evilly of insurance companies is also unfair. I may disagree with the overriding philosophy of health insurance as it currently exists in the world, but we have to acknowledge that for a great deal of people, health insurance has done them the services for which they paid. If they did not like that insurance, there have always been options, from other insurance companies to collective health organizations to health savings accounts in recent years.

We don't need the health bill as it currently stands. It's got new taxes and requirements for more people to purchase health insurance, as though purchasing health insurance automatically made people healthier or gave doctors new insight into their patients. What we need are things like tort reform, not years of new taxes. We don't want the government telling us how much we should pay for which procedures. That'll mean we can't decide whether or not we'll buy health insurance, and we can't determine with our doctors which procedures make sense, or how to pay for those procedures, and the doctors of today and tomorrow will have less incentive to perform to the best of their abilities. If instead we have tort reform, then doctors will have more incentives and ability to continue practicing, and we'll still be able to choose how to pay for our health care.