Three Steps To True Health Care Reform

June 25, 2011 12:40 pm 1 comment

It’s been over a year since President Obama signed into the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” , commonly known as “ObamaCare”.  An enormous bill (at one point, over 2000 pages before being pared down to a mere 906), it is chock-full of mandates, prohibitions, taxes, and bureaucracy deemed “reform” by its advocates and ostensibly designed to provide “universal coverage”.  The law has become the signature accomplishment of the Obama Administration but remains unpopular:  a majority of citizens still favor its repeal, every announced Republican presidential candidate has vowed its reversal, and the Department of Health and Human Services has had to issue over 500 waivers to companies and unions to prevent them from dropping coverage for their employees and members.

Advocates of the government-centric approach (many of whom thought the law didn’t go  far enough, preferring a total government takeover with a European-style “single-payer” system) continue to accuse critics of being against health care reform altogether and having no alternative.  There are a number of free market reforms that would improve access to health care and reduce costs without imposing costly taxes or intrusive mandates on individuals and families, and without increasing the size and scope of the federal government.  Three easy, market-based reforms in particular should form the basis for any reform plan.

First, give individuals the same tax benefits for purchasing health insurance that employers currently get for offering it.  Employees could still have the option of getting health insurance through their employer, but would no longer have to worry about losing their health coverage if laid off or if they wanted to change jobs or start their own business.  Coverage would be portable, and millions of new consumers would be unleashed into the marketplace, creating new competition.  Rather than looking only at the options provided at work, individuals and families could shop around for coverage that more fits their own needs.  Insurance companies would be forced to cater to a wider variety of interests and would be forced to sell directly to the consumer, not a benefits department at a large corporation.

Second, further expand competition and choice by ending the federal prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines.  If a resident of Texas wants to buy a laptop computer, a car, or even food, he doesn’t have to buy from a company chartered in the state; unfortunately, such is not the case when purchasing health insurance.  The explosion of internet-based commerce has made it even easier to shop for nearly any item around the country, or even around the world.  Imagine what increased market access could do for health insurance consumers if insurance companies were no longer sheltered from out-of-state competition.  Companies like Amazon that have revolutionized shopping for books, movies, and electronics could become retail outlets for insurance, further expanding the market and making companies more accountable to their customers.  More personalized options would be offered as companies compete for the consumers’ dollars, and the insurance companies themselves could cut expensive overhead by not having to meet state-by-state regulatory requirements.  States themselves could then compete to streamline their own requirements to induce companies to move there, removing even more red tape from the insurance process, with savings passed along to consumers.

Third, increase consumers’ ability to leverage by removing barriers to group plans.  Groups as varied as the NAACP or  the National Small Business Association could pool members together from all 50 states and leverage those groups to negotiate with the insurance companies.  For example, many architects are self-employed and lack insurance; think the American Institute of Architects would be interested in providing insurance options to its members?  Many with diabetes are worried about getting coverage for their “pre-existing condition”:  enter the American Diabetes Association, with its ability to leverage a potential customer base of up to 25 million people.  In an open market, most insurance providers would probably be interested in competing for those customer pools.  And, as the market expanded, further groups could be formed with the sole purpose of consolidating groups to bargain for better rates and more options.

Cellular phones were once large, clunky devices, owned exclusively by the rich; market competition and innovation have brought down the costs of cellular service dramatically while simultaneously improving the service and options.  The result:  over 80% of Americans now own a cell phone, and “smart phone” innovation is breathtaking.  Why not apply the same principles of free market competition to the health insurance market?  The three steps outlined above would expand access, decrease costs, improve options, and empower individuals and families.

That would be true health care reform.

1 Comment

  • Thanks Davis you are right….we should treat our health insurance like my Auto insurance. My currant auto plan my wife bought when she was 16 over the years as our life changed so did our needs. We got married had kids now my oldest is learning to drive….But we still have the same insurance it is portable and I am able to make the necessarily changes i need when i need them.

    Why do companies need to provide my health? Why to let companies buy all my auto also so i can get a better rate…

    Heath Care does not need to be complicating..

Leave a Reply


Other News

  • Christian Persecution World Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ On Islamic State

    Russia Declares ‘Holy War’ On Islamic State

    The Orthodox Christian Church, which is reclaiming its traditional role in post-Soviet Russia, has just described its government’s fight against the Islamic State and other jihadi groups in Syria as a “holy war.”

    According to Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Church’s Public Affairs Department,

    The fight with terrorism is a holy battle and today our country is perhaps the most active force in the world fighting it. The Russian Federation has made a responsible decision on the use of armed forces to defend the People of Syria from the sorrows caused by the arbitrariness of terrorists. Christians are suffering in the region with the kidnapping of clerics and the destruction of churches. Muslims are suffering no less.

    This is not a pretext to justify intervention in Syria.

    Read more →
  • 2nd Amendment Faith Oregon Shooting – When Tragedy Happens Let’s Focus On The Cause And Not The Tools Used

    Oregon Shooting – When Tragedy Happens Let’s Focus On The Cause And Not The Tools Used

    While the blood was still dripping from those martyrs who, in front of an evil man armed with a gun, asked them if they were Christians and those strong in the faith said they were. He shot them in the head. While those who were lost or weak said nothing he spared their lives and shot them in their legs.

    Barrack Hussein Obama angrily ran to the cameras to use this opportunity to say that guns being in the hands of the law-abiding Americans is the problem, and we need to restrict the 2nd amendment to spare the lives of “we the people.”

    This is nuts; guns do not kill people, people kill people! You can test this fact in your own home right now. (Do not worry no one will get hurt).

    Read more →
  • 2nd Amendment Faith Gun Free Zones Are Killing Zones

    Gun Free Zones Are Killing Zones

    How did you feel when you heard of the shootings in Oregon this week? Was the first thing that came to your mind the thought that if we only had stricter gun control legislation, this kind of tragedy could have been prevented?

    If you listened to idiotic liberals, like President Barack “Insane” Obama, you might believe that. It is my contention that liberalism is a mental disorder based on the rejection of God and His principles, and extreme irresponsibility.

    Read more →
  • National Where’s the Beef, in Republican candidates, in 2015?

    Where’s the Beef, in Republican candidates, in 2015?

    What type of Republican Leader do you want in 2015?

    As we look at elections coming up quickly in 2015, as well as the very important 2016 election cycle, what type of “Republican” leaders do you want to shape the future of your county and country?

    Do you ever wonder why it is that the current crop of Republicans are not declaring, at every media interview, “These ills have been brought to you by the Democrat Party!” when speaking of Obamacare, the hordes of immigrants being allowed to destroy our country, the Iranian nuclear treaty, the “Black Lives Matter” racial division rhetoric, the attack on the defense of marriage, the 94 million Americans not currently in the work force,

    Read more →
  • National Child protection services Sentences Baby To Death ON 9/11/2015

    Child protection services Sentences Baby To Death ON 9/11/2015

    Child protection services should be self-explanatory based on the simplicity of its name. But they are doing exactly opposite of their name in many places. Wynne, Arkansas is one such place.

    A baby has been sentenced to death and will be executed on Friday, September 11, 2015 and Arkansas Department of HUMAN SERVICES (DHS) – Division of Children and Family Services- Central Office will facilitate the delivery of the baby’s 10-year-old to the abortion clinic.

    On August 29, 2015 20-year-old Justin Smith was arrested and charged with three counts of rape and one count of endangering the welfare of a minor. His “alleged” victim is a 10-year-old.

    Read more →