Maryland Senator Ben Cardin hosted a townhall meeting recently and fielded this question from audience member Robert Broadus.
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If we don't have basic health care available for "our people" we are no better then third world countries whose people die of illnesses that are treatable, but can't get proper care because of where they happen to be born, or because of poverty, etc...what is necessary, much less appropriate for them?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI just happen to run across this on the internet.
A couple comments.
You assume that the individual who choses to not have health care insurance can pay, and would pay for any hospital stay. I would think that most of us would be unable to assume the cost of a sengthy stay in a care facility. If someone has an illness that demands long and expensive care,say cancer, most would be unable to afford the cost.
Secondly, you connect the increase demand to the increase in cost, saying the first causes the second. My supply-side economic friends would say that if you offer something then that will create a demand. Example: since we have been offered a pill for sexual disfunction, the cases have increased significantly. Musch of the increase in cost has to be recognized as the responsibility of the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and the drug companies. Much of the cost is found in salries, facilities, advertizing and drugs.
Regulations do not always mean higher costs; since a cap on costs is a regulation.
Since you have health care insurance I must ask if the statement: "Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare, therfore they use it more often." is true to your family?
Then finally,
The older hospitals in our area were all started by the Christian community. It had long been their practice to treat all people as Jesus would treat them. The federal policy follows the practice first put in place by disciples of Jesus. it is one place in our society where true Christian ethics is supported by the government.
Serving all people is a sign of the kingdom that came near in Jesus.