Getting Rid Of Government

I have to admit, I'm intrigued but puzzled by all those anger-challenged people out there screaming that they want government out of their health care.  But it occurs to me that there is an excellent, everybody-happy solution to the continuing gridlock over "reforms." 

Let's just establish two systems.  Choice, that's what it's all about in Amurrica, right?  So, we offer choice.  Let's start with health care.  An individual could complete a simple checkoff, "yes" or "no," to choose whether he/she wanted health care with government, or without - for the rest of his life.  Sort of like, your coffee with cream, or without. Those who say "with" would continue pretty much as they are now, and would in very short order also enjoy the basic principles of health care that are already built in to the systems of every other developed country in the world -- universal care, no hairsplitting about what's covered, no refusal for "pre-existing conditions," and the like.

Those who say "without" would not be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs (if in the military, they'd give up their access to the military's already-socialized medicine and go out on the free market).  They could go without workmen's comp or unemployment benefits (at least insofar as unemployment was caused by health problems).  They might get very cheap prescriptions, but they would have to buy medicines uncertified by the FDA, maybe produced in China with a healthy admixture of goat dung and toxic chemicals.  Their insurance would be strictly private, without any employer contribution to the cost (because after all, that's mandated by government).  Their physicians would be uncertified and unlicensed by any government authority.  When they needed hospitalization, they'd go only to privately operated hospitals.  If they were hit by a car or had a heart attack, they'd depend on the kindness of a neighbor or a friendly taxi, since most EMR services are operated by the hated government (though possibly in time, there would be private services). 

Depending on the provisions of the policy written by their benevolent private insurance company, the no-government crowd might - or might not - find that everything they need is covered.  They wouldn't have to share medical costs of those "freeloaders" who are already sick and can't get insurance (surely all those people would choose the government option). But, just as children now are included on their parents' health insurance, the government-free gang's kids would also be government-free.  The young 'uns could have a chance to make their own choice at age 18 or so, but meanwhile, if born with a preexisting condition, their care would be completely at the parents' cost, since that's the preferred M.O. of insurance companies and there would be nothing to require the insurers to change that. 

The rates in the no-government sector would be uncontrolled by any federal or state entity, and the doctors they could go to would undoubtedly still be dictated by the insurance companies, as they mostly are now, though the companies would undoubtedly be putting greater emphasis on finding low-cost providers.  Medical costs would not be deductible on income tax returns, of course.   

Judging from what I hear daily in the news, I'm certain the "no-government" option would be extremely popular.  There must be millions of independent-minded, self-sufficient, freedom-loving citizens out there just itching to sign up.  Let's offer the choice, and find out.  And the rest of us could get on with business.

Comments

[Joseph Lott]

Since most of these right wingers use the same argument - keep government out of what private industry can do better - I'd like to propose the same idea be extended beyond health care to include mail, mortgages, railroads, electricity, television, and student loans? Of course, I'm referring to USPS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, TVA, PBS, and Sallie Mae. We probably ought to throw in college, too, but those large state-owned land grant universities are responsible for college football and that would be going too far.

[Jhawk23]

Actually, the myth that the private sector can do everything better, and cheaper, needs examination too. I'm currently reading the book "The Healing Of America," (see link in the right margin of this blog), which examines the health care systems of other countries around the world - France, Germany, Japan, and on.

The author makes the point that all these countries have better care, covering more people, and at lower cost than we do; and in most cases, the lower cost results from one factor: the system is not for-profit. Broken down further, that means that insurance is required to pay any claim submitted (no army of adjustors trying to second-guess doctors or to deny claims on spurious grounds), and (b) the prices caregivers may charge for services are usually standardized at a relatively low level.

In short, it's our for-profit system that costs us so much. That's why I still believe that a public option, at least for basic care, is an essential element of true reform.