President Obama has said that his health care reforms will cost the nation $1 trillion. But what does $1 trillion get you?
Most assume that for $1 trillion, the United States will achieve universal coverage, and every man, woman and child in America will be covered. To many, this might be worth the cost. But that’s not what’s on the table so far.
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal had some coverage on existing Supreme Court of the United States case law, privacy rights and their implications for government health care.
The Supreme Court created and guarantees the right to privacy, which is justified by the Fourteenth Amendment: "… these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” That is, the courts guarantee Americans a right to personal autonomy over their lives and prohibit the government from infringing on that right.
One of the major downsides of Canada’s socialized health care system is that you might die while waiting for care. Lindsay McCreith is the plaintiff in a case challenging Canada’s government monopoly on health care provision and insurance with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
The Wall Street Journal published an outstanding essay by Abraham Verghese on the costs of preventative health care.
If you’ve paid attention to President Obama’s promise to reduce health costs and find the savings that will fund his health care reforms through actions like switching America’s focus toward preventative medicine, take note that while an ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure, it sure doesn’t cost less. From Verghese’s article:
President Obama has been adamant that if his public insurer is introduced to the market, Americans who have insurance and are happy with it will be able to keep their plans.
The Congressional Budget Office seems to see things differently, though. Their analysis of Sen. Kennedy's health care bill estimates that under the proposed changes, 23 million Americans would lose their private insurance coverage because of the bill.
Derek Melot from the Lansing State Journal had a blog post last week on the vested interests of doctors (specifically the American Medical Association). In his post, Melot seems to suggest that doctors’ input in the health care debate should be less important because they may lose money under some reform proposals.
The Detroit News reports that Michigan may create its own state-funded insurance plan for the uninsured in the state.
There are plenty of problems with the plan, but here’s the biggest concern: If Michigan is already free to create a program like this, why does Congress feel they need to impose a one-size-fits-all plan on the nation?
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is seeking an immediate and significant rate hike (of about 44.4 percent) for those who buy their insurance through the provider and are not insured through the workplace.
Robert Kasperek, a regulatory vice president for BCBS, actually has the gall to call the 44.4 percent hike a “money saving” move for its ratepayers, since the hike is not as high as the original 56 percent the organization requested.
A little while back, Libby Spencer at The Detroit News had written in her blog that Obama and Democratic health care reformers are not supporting socialized medicine with Sen. Kennedy’s bill or Obama’s public option. Ms. Spencer, along with Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, believes, "Socialized medicine is a system in which the government owns the means of providing medicine."
