The Republican Party has announced a continued campaign against healthcare reform. Has anyone bothered to see that what they are trying to create is unrealistic and generally impossible?
The bill essentially has two parts, the one part makes buying health insurance compulsory and the other makes it so insurance companies cannot turn down or revoke insurance from people for any reason; taken as a whole the reform is a step forward. How many times has a story ended in, “the insurance cut them off in the middle of treatment” or something similar resulting in someone’s death? I don’t know an exact figure but it seems to me that once is one too many and no one should have to worry about having insurance they’ve paid years for get cancelled. Anyway, that’s not the part that is being attacked by Republicans, the compulsory purchasing of insurance is.
Why are Republicans attacking the compulsory purchasing of insurance? The Republicans are calling it socialism and claiming it kills jobs. I like definitions; they clear up confusion more frequently than contributing to confusion, so, defining socialism.
Socialism (noun) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Okay, with a clear understanding of what is defined as socialism which is characterized as government control or administration, I have become confused as to how requiring a person to purchase insurance is socialism. If that act is socialism all laws are acts of socialism and than Republicans have become pseudo-anarchists that intend to dismantle … I’m going to stop that fantasy right there because it is clearly absurd like the healthcare reform being socialism is. The other part of the reform is characterized by government regulations on a private institution. Is that socialism? It is getting closer but it still isn’t because strictly speaking it is not control of the institution, it is rules that say “if you want to operate this business you need to do these things” which has been an ongoing trend in the United States since “The Jungle” (1906 by Upton Sinclair) which lead to, amongst other things, health code reforms and regulations on the beef industry.
Regulation =/= Socialism
Anyway, the reform will lead to the creation of more jobs than it destroys. For an insurance company to handle the increase in customers they will need to become more efficient and expand the bureaucracy so that people will want to continue using the company’s services since the individual is no longer locked into their services by pre-existing conditions. Ultimately this reform will end in a customer service war to keep the individuals to keep buying insurance from these companies. This is the free market in action where now that all things are even companies need to make services better for the consumer or the consumer will find someone to do the services better. The only jobs that will be destroyed by this reform are the position of the “risk manager” that cut people off from their insurance right when they needed it most. Companies lose a department that is made of what is worst about capitalism is disbanded and then ate up by the increased need of other departments to increase service to the consumer.
I’m not seeing the downside.
The reform leans on each other, the regulations on the insurance industry without the regulations on the individual ends in insurance not being a profitable business because why would people buy insurance until they were sick if they couldn’t be turned down for pre-existing conditions? If the individual is required to buy insurance and they can be turned down for pre-existing conditions what is to stop the insurance companies from charging outlandish prices to individuals with pre-existing conditions? The two parts of the reform need each other and the Republicans are trying to do away with the requirement of the individual to buy insurance. Without that requirement the other half falls and now the United States is no better off today than it was two years ago.
The healthcare reform is mostly good and there is no easy way to improve on it, can we leave it alone, please?
The bill essentially has two parts, the one part makes buying health insurance compulsory and the other makes it so insurance companies cannot turn down or revoke insurance from people for any reason; taken as a whole the reform is a step forward. How many times has a story ended in, “the insurance cut them off in the middle of treatment” or something similar resulting in someone’s death? I don’t know an exact figure but it seems to me that once is one too many and no one should have to worry about having insurance they’ve paid years for get cancelled. Anyway, that’s not the part that is being attacked by Republicans, the compulsory purchasing of insurance is.
Why are Republicans attacking the compulsory purchasing of insurance? The Republicans are calling it socialism and claiming it kills jobs. I like definitions; they clear up confusion more frequently than contributing to confusion, so, defining socialism.
Socialism (noun) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Okay, with a clear understanding of what is defined as socialism which is characterized as government control or administration, I have become confused as to how requiring a person to purchase insurance is socialism. If that act is socialism all laws are acts of socialism and than Republicans have become pseudo-anarchists that intend to dismantle … I’m going to stop that fantasy right there because it is clearly absurd like the healthcare reform being socialism is. The other part of the reform is characterized by government regulations on a private institution. Is that socialism? It is getting closer but it still isn’t because strictly speaking it is not control of the institution, it is rules that say “if you want to operate this business you need to do these things” which has been an ongoing trend in the United States since “The Jungle” (1906 by Upton Sinclair) which lead to, amongst other things, health code reforms and regulations on the beef industry.
Regulation =/= Socialism
Anyway, the reform will lead to the creation of more jobs than it destroys. For an insurance company to handle the increase in customers they will need to become more efficient and expand the bureaucracy so that people will want to continue using the company’s services since the individual is no longer locked into their services by pre-existing conditions. Ultimately this reform will end in a customer service war to keep the individuals to keep buying insurance from these companies. This is the free market in action where now that all things are even companies need to make services better for the consumer or the consumer will find someone to do the services better. The only jobs that will be destroyed by this reform are the position of the “risk manager” that cut people off from their insurance right when they needed it most. Companies lose a department that is made of what is worst about capitalism is disbanded and then ate up by the increased need of other departments to increase service to the consumer.
I’m not seeing the downside.
The reform leans on each other, the regulations on the insurance industry without the regulations on the individual ends in insurance not being a profitable business because why would people buy insurance until they were sick if they couldn’t be turned down for pre-existing conditions? If the individual is required to buy insurance and they can be turned down for pre-existing conditions what is to stop the insurance companies from charging outlandish prices to individuals with pre-existing conditions? The two parts of the reform need each other and the Republicans are trying to do away with the requirement of the individual to buy insurance. Without that requirement the other half falls and now the United States is no better off today than it was two years ago.
The healthcare reform is mostly good and there is no easy way to improve on it, can we leave it alone, please?
No comments:
Post a Comment