Dem Bill to Limit Health Options Fails [semi-satire]

A bill aimed at preventing consumers from choosing health insurance plans that better fit their needs was introduced in the Senate by Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY). If passed, the bill would overrule President Trump's executive order expanding options beyond the limited list of expensive choices mandated under Obamacare.

Schumer complained that "the freedom President Trump injected into federal health care policy allows healthy individuals to choose insurance that is suited to their own needs, regardless of the needs of other, less healthy individuals. As Trump would have it, people who don't want to pay for coverage they don't need can do so. This violates the essential premise of President Obama's health care vision, namely, that everyone should pay for everyone else's health insurance. He was wise enough to realize that only by compelling the majority to pay for what they don't want can the government guarantee that everyone gets the health care that experts agree they ought to have."

The Senator also argued that "Trump's approach poses a significant threat to the health care industry. Expensive Obamacare plans cover expensive treatments that hospitals and pharmaceutical companies depend upon for their income. These companies are virtually unanimous in their support for Obamacare. Are we going to listen to the best and brightest when it comes to crafting policy? Or are we going to let Trump's misguided reverence for individualistic ideals destroy President Obama's socially responsible conception of how we ought to do things?"

Even moderate Republicans rejected Schumer's arguments. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) pointed out that "the plans authorized by President Trump allow those not enamored of nanny-state compulsion to make their own choices." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said "our constituents deserve more options, not fewer." Schumer's bill narrowly failed on a 50-50 tie vote. That's how thin a margin there is for freedom in the upper house of Congress.

if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...

web.archive.org/web/20130811135205/http://www.chesterton.org/2012/02/a-prophetic-look-at-national-health-care-2/

G.K. Chesterton considered himself a member of the Liberal Party until 1912. As he would later say, he did not leave the Liberal Party. It left him. He believed in something called liberty, the idea that people should be able to make most decisions for themselves, especially the most basic and most important decisions, and not have such decisions made for them by anyone else, especially by the government. He believed, as a liberal, that the State’s role was to preserve liberty, not take it away.

What happened in 1912? The Liberal Party, which held power in Parliament, passed The Health Insurance Act. Every working man was required to have part of his wages withheld to pay for a national health insurance. The funding was to be further supplemented by a tax on every employer. Sound familiar?

Chesterton’s objections to the Insurance Act were threefold. First, it was anti-democratic in practice. The vast majority of the English population was against it. It was being passed against their will, but—so the argument went—for their own good. Second, it was anti-democratic in principle. It divided the populace into two permanent castes: those who labor, and those who pay for the labor. Chesterton called this what it is: slavery. Third, Chesterton saw the Act as paving the way to the State seizing more power, more influence, more interference in everyone’s daily lives. Sound familiar?

About a century later, here in America, we are looking at essentially the same thing that Chesterton was looking at. We watched as a National Health Care program was passed in utter defiance of public support, rammed through the legislative process by one party rather than by any sort of consensus. We have also watched the reinforcement of a system comprised of employers and employees, of wage-earners rather than independent, self-sufficient and truly “self-employed” citizens. And we have also watched the unimaginable growth of government as it has insinuated itself into every aspect of our lives.

One of Chesterton’s strongest objections to the Insurance Act was the increase in taxes to those who could scarcely afford to have any of their income taken from them, even if it was to be used for something specific like health care. The tax prevented a man from paying for other needs he had that might be just as important as medical care. He was being forced to pay for medical care that he might not need. What other things that he did not need would the State decide he must also pay for?

Chesterton pointed out that a compulsory Health Insurance Act was first passed in Germany. It followed another compulsory act that was also first passed in Germany: compulsory education. Chesterton was a vocal opponent of state-sponsored compulsory education, for the same reasons he was against a national health insurance. It was an attack on freedom. It gave the government too much power, and it took away a basic freedom from the citizen. The liberal argument was that the State was providing a valuable service. Chesterton’s counter-argument was that though the State was providing education, it was the State’s education. Though it was providing medicine, it was a forced medicine. With a compulsory insurance, he argued, people were being forced to pay to be protected against themselves. People are often willing to trade freedom for security. But the problem is that it is usually someone else trading our freedom for our security.

Although Chesterton found himself allied with the conservatives on the issue of health care, he might point out now that one of the reasons we have gotten into the present mess was that health care became an industry, controlled by large corporations rather than independent practitioners, and every industry tends to grow till it forms an alliance with big government. When health care started becoming too expensive, the solution was supposed to be health insurance. But insurance quickly made health care even more expensive. On the one hand, the medical industry stopped worrying about being affordable; on the other, a new layer of private bureaucracy and overhead was added that also needed to be paid for. Is there a solution? Yes. There is one drastic solution.

But sometimes issues of health require drastic measures. The health care system needs radical surgery. The honest thing to do is do away with health insurance. Doctors and hospitals and clinics should start selling a product that people can afford, and that they should not have to buy unless they actually need the product. It should not cost a thousand dollars to treat an ingrown toenail. But it does. It should not cost $30,000 to set a broken arm. But it does. Ours is a system that cannot be sustained. That is why the government feels justified to step in.

Chesterton prophesied this very scenario. He warns that the State cannot become a Universal Provider without becoming just another big shop. The one thing we’ve seen about big shops is that they collapse. We can avoid the big collapse if we start getting small again. We might even get healthy again.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.