Solution to Obamacare

To say that the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama earlier this year is unpopular would be a gross understatement. For every person who thinks the law is good, there’s a person who thinks the law is bad.
My personal opinion is that the law is bad; not only because consumers are being forced by the government to buy a product (health insurance), but also because the problems with health care cost and management are only being perpetuated under the new law.
Health insurance companies are being given even more power than they had before, because the consumer is going to have to buy their products; we can no longer choose not to.
Demand for health care can reasonably be expected to rise sharply in the next several years, just as it has for the past few decades. There are no indicators to suggest that demand is going to be brought under control by the new law. Not with the baby-boom generation retiring and aging; certainly not with a current shortage of medical school graduates and a high rate of physicians leaving the profession; and not at all with a new population of insured patients requiring routine care for their pre-existing conditions.
The “Obamacare” law is also setting the health insurance industry up for failure, a consequence of the law that was assuredly by design and not by mistake. Forcing insurance companies to take on pre-existing conditions, placing a cap or moratorium on premium increases, and levying a series of taxes, fines and regulatory fees is ultimately going to end with the industry begging on its knees before Congress for a government bailout. When that happens, the proponents of government provided, universal single-payer health care will have their victory.
This could realistically happen within the next decade. It all depends on how long health insurance companies can operate in the red, because they’ll be losing their black pretty darn quick.
For those of us who oppose government run and managed health care, the consequences of the current law seem pretty clear and the future rather bleak. We needn’t be reminded again of what happens to a product, service and even an entire industry when competition disappears.
What happens, unfortunately, is that we get Amtrak, and an airline industry whose quality and service has suffered in direct correlation with shrinking competition.
Conversely, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has vastly improved the quality of its services and products with increased competition. Thanks to UPS, Federal Express, DHL and other package delivery companies, as well as the introduction of the Internet and electronic mail, the USPS has been compelled to modify itself in order to better compete for business in a highly competitive logistics industry.
Because of competition, the USPS isn’t just a letter carrier anymore; it is a communications partner and a package delivery service, too.
Perhaps that is what is necessary to change the health care industry for the better: More competition, not less.
I’d like to suggest that the federal government introduce a public-private partnered subsidized health insurance company that competes for policyholders with other private insurance providers around the country. I think we have been going in the wrong direction trying to replace the current private insurance system with a “free” public option program.
Why not simply add another insurance provider into the mix?
Like the USPS, this new health insurance provider could be funded using some public money to start with; but most revenue would be privately generated through the marketplace: Sales and consequent profits, which shall ultimately sustain the endeavor.
The USPS is more or less self-sustained anyway, and is capable of operating independent of tax revenue—most of which covers the salaries and benefits of federal postal employees. Realistically, the USPS could probably stand on its own two feet without the federal government at all; but the service is mandated by the Constitution. Besides that, public employee unions would likely stand in the way of any attempt to privatize their salaries and benefits.
But that’s neither here nor there.
Back on point, would it be unreasonable to introduce a federal health insurance company that offers expanded coverage for pre-existing and other high-risk conditions, lower premiums for policyholders, and affordable deductibles and/or co-pays?
Maybe I am just naïve, but it seems to me that if there can be one company that pioneers more inclusive health insurance coverage at an attractive price, then more consumers will want to buy a policy from this company instead of its competitors. This would create greater demand in the marketplace for better products and services from the health insurance industry as a whole. Other insurance companies would likely respond by trying to become more like the federal insurance company that everyone seems to want to buy a policy from.
What you would have, then, is consumer-driven rather than government-mandated change. That’s what turned the USPS around, and it can be what turns the health insurance industry around, too.
We have to stop thinking in terms of regulating, punishing and/or replacing the current system, and instead use the system against itself to change things for the better.
More regulation isn’t the answer. All that seems to do is grow government and shrink competition, because regulation tends to choke enterprises out of business or leads them to mergers and into conglomerates.
Replacing the private health care system isn’t the answer, either, because the world is ripe with examples of bad things that happen when health care becomes a public rather than a private endeavor.
The solution, in my opinion, is to work within the current system to change it. Use the system against itself. Fight fire with fire. If insurance companies are reluctant to cover pre-existing conditions, then they need a healthy motivation to do so.
That kind of motivation can only be found in the free market and a competitive environment that challenges them to either change or else lose business and money.
If you hit an opponent or competitor where they hurt the most, then they will yield.
But simply taking money from them in the form of regulatory fees doesn’t work, because that money doesn’t get re-circulated back into the marketplace.
If insurance companies are going to get inspired to change, then that change must come from within. There must be a change in the dynamics, the processes and the practices of the industry.
The best solution to inspire this kind of change is to have an agent within the industry. All it takes is one bold pioneer to change the way an entire industry works and does business.
Henry Ford proved this with his assembly line production of Model T Ford automobiles.
Prior to Ford’s revolutionary production standard, the automobile was made-to-order. Consequently, only the wealthy and well-to-do American could afford to buy a new transportation novelty like the automobile.
Ford’s invention of mass production not only met the demand with supply, but he managed to make cars that even the common man could afford, too. The rest, as they say, is history. Ford set the standard for production not only in the automobile industry, but in so many other product industries as well.
This happened because one pioneer had an idea that changed the way his competitors and his industry did business. And it was done without government regulation, mandates or complete public replacement of a private industry.
One lesson I’ve learned from studying history is that if it had been done before, then it can be done again.
I know that many conservatives may look upon my solution with skepticism or scorn. That’s okay. I understand why.
No true conservative would consider using government as an answer to a problem.
Well, I’m not advocating that government be the answer at all. I am advocating a free market, consumer-driven solution using the federal government as a tool. The answer is the consumer and the market. The vehicle is the federal government.
Per the U.S. Constitution, the federal government—Congress, in particular—has a duty to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States of America. This means creating a climate favorable to prosperity, growth and expansion of opportunity.
By entering the competitive marketplace, the federal government would not be taking control of anything, but rather providing another product or service from which consumers can choose.
My solution calls for a federal insurance company that would be self-sufficient, sustaining itself on profits from the products and services it sells to the consumer.
Why the federal government, you ask? Why not just another private entity?
Well, I’m waiting for one of those to show up and do what other insurance companies aren’t willing to do. So far, none has appeared. Furthermore, considering the mandates of the current health care law, I don’t think any will appear in the near future, either.
So, it is up to us, the people of the United States of America, to provide for the general welfare, just as it is written in the Constitution’s Preamble.
Use the federal government as the tool for promoting the general welfare that it was meant to be. Make the government part of the solution instead of part of the problem by turning it into a product supplier, a producer and competitor in the free market.
If it works for the mail, then why couldn’t it also work for health insurance?