Two Flaws in National Health Insurance
I have been thinking about national health insurance and I obsolete to be for it. But now I am not positive, as there are two fundamental problems with any national health insurance understanding.
The first quandary can be summed up briefly. If you have national health care, the government will accelerate it. Lickety-split name anything that the government runs efficiently. Believe about how overjoyed you are to renew your driver’s license. You dismay the long lines, the obscene clerks, their attitude of ” I don’t give a damn”. This is the same government that will be running national health insurance. You consider you detest your HMO now. You reflect that CIGNA stands for Called In Got No Retort, objective wait until it is taken over by the government clerks.
And let’s be dependable. You believe there is too grand administration and paper work interested in the health care industry now? PLEASE! Again name one government program that has ever decreased paper work and administrative costs.
Remember Ronald Reagan’s distinguished line. “The scariest phrase in the world is I am from the government and I am here to relieve you.”
In theory, national health care insurance sounds colossal. But the government cannot accelerate anything efficiently, the projected cost of national health insurance hovers somewhere around one trillion a year, and you are assuming the government will maintain these costs under control. Okay – you are allowed to snicker here. The words government and cost control do not belong in the same sentence. Again, name one government program known for its pleasant cost control efforts.
You may despise Blue Immoral, but they have shareholders they must describe to. They have a profit they must produce every year. They have an incentive to support costs under control. What incentive does the government have to support costs under control?
The other fundamental plight with national health care is the very assumption that it rests upon. People need health care, therefore the government will provide it. Last time I checked, we already had a private sector providing health insurance.
Now judge about that. If the government can remove over any private sector business, because ” people need the product.”, that is, at best, a very shaky argument. And if the government can seize over a private sector business, because “they are charging too distinguished”, that again is a very scary proposition.
Inspect we all need electricity. But if I don’t pay my bill, the power company will shut off my lights. That is not graceful. Over 40 million Americans cannot afford electricity and something must be done about it. The distinct respond is to have the goverrment prefer over my local electric company and provide me with electricity. That will say the electric company two lessons. First, do not gain into business providing a service people “need”. As with national health care, if the government does not like the job you are doing, they will purchase you over.
The second lesson. Objective like health care premiums, if the electric rates go up too high and the people cannot afford your needed service, the government can step in, capture over, and ensure that everyone has affordable premiums, I mean electric rates.
Hmm – government clerks running your health care. And giving the government permission to pick over any business sector providing a indispensable service – electricity, housing, food, gas – objective so government clerks can control the costs. Those are two roads I don’t want to go down.
I have been thinking about national health insurance and I broken-down to be for it. But now I am not definite, as there are two fundamental problems with any national health insurance opinion.
The first plight can be summed up briefly. If you have national health care, the government will speed it. Fleet name anything that the government runs efficiently. Mediate about how gay you are to renew your driver’s license. You apprehension the long lines, the grievous clerks, their attitude of ” I don’t give a damn”. This is the same government that will be running national health insurance. You consider you dislike your HMO now. You mediate that CIGNA stands for Called In Got No Respond, impartial wait until it is taken over by the government clerks.
And let’s be trusty. You assume there is too distinguished administration and paper work fervent in the health care industry now? PLEASE! Again name one government program that has ever decreased paper work and administrative costs.
Remember Ronald Reagan’s eminent line. “The scariest phrase in the world is I am from the government and I am here to succor you.”
In theory, national health care insurance sounds substantial. But the government cannot accelerate anything efficiently, the projected cost of national health insurance hovers somewhere around one trillion a year, and you are assuming the government will sustain these costs under control. Okay – you are allowed to snicker here. The words government and cost control do not belong in the same sentence. Again, name one government program known for its kindly cost control efforts.
You may disapprove Blue Rank, but they have shareholders they must represent to. They have a profit they must manufacture every year. They have an incentive to withhold costs under control. What incentive does the government have to maintain costs under control?
The other fundamental dilemma with national health care is the very assumption that it rests upon. People need health care, therefore the government will provide it. Last time I checked, we already had a private sector providing health insurance.
Now consider about that. If the government can acquire over any private sector business, because ” people need the product.”, that is, at best, a very shaky argument. And if the government can purchase over a private sector business, because “they are charging too noteworthy”, that again is a very scary proposition.
Witness we all need electricity. But if I don’t pay my bill, the power company will shut off my lights. That is not delicate. Over 40 million Americans cannot afford electricity and something must be done about it. The determined retort is to have the goverrment acquire over my local electric company and provide me with electricity. That will content the electric company two lessons. First, do not come by into business providing a service people “need”. As with national health care, if the government does not like the job you are doing, they will assume you over.
The second lesson. Impartial like health care premiums, if the electric rates go up too high and the people cannot afford your needed service, the government can step in, consume over, and ensure that everyone has affordable premiums, I mean electric rates.
Hmm – government clerks running your health care. And giving the government permission to buy over any business sector providing a notable service – electricity, housing, food, gas – unprejudiced so government clerks can control the costs. Those are two roads I don’t want to go down.