We can do much better

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

By Matthew Irwin

Senator John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) and President Barak Obama had a moment at the Health Care Summit that defines the point of contention on national healthcare reform.

Barrasso said that if citizens had to pay for most health services out of pocket ( with a backup of catastrophic coverage), they would make better (i.e. cheaper) healthcare decisions.

“Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000?” Obama responded.
The point of contention is philosophy on government. The first is an idealistic view of personal responsibility, assuming not only that everyone is capable of it, but that they have the means to it.

The second is an altruistic view of the common good, namely that healthcare for all is in the name of it and that everyone cares about it. Both, I dare say, are unrealistic, because we have a fundamental inability to join personal freedom with social contract, both upon which the power of influence weighs heavy.

Speaking of favoring insurance companies while pretending to work for the people, Wyoming’s lawmakers are considering three pieces of legislation that potentially increase expenses for citizens while simultaneously increasing opportunities for health insurance providers.

HB 108 would create the Wyoming Affordable HSA Eligible High Deductible Health Plan Act, which would allow for the sale of health savings accounts in high deductible plans offered by private insurers. Sounds fine for a healthy guy like myself, but it also sounds like a way for insurers to continue collecting premiums without providing benefits.

A similar bill in the Senate, SF 61, would create personal health accounts in an effort to encourage Medicaid recipients to be self-sufficient, though it also creates opportunities for individuals to fall into debt with the state if their accounts aren’t sufficient enough for their medical needs.
Both bills advocate employer-based plans and offer incentives to individuals who find new jobs in order to enter group plans. Two problems: 1) so much for self-employment; 2) like we’re all looking for employers who don’t offer health insurance.

Perhaps the most erroneous bill, however, is “Health insurance-interstate purchase” or HB 128. It includes this disclaimer: “The benefits of this policy providing your coverage are governed primarily by the laws of a state OTHER than Wyoming. While this health benefit plan may provide you a more affordable health insurance policy, it may also provide fewer health benefits than those normally included as state-mandated health benefits in policies in Wyoming.”
But it’s cheaper, right?

So apparently, in an effort to make its citizens more personally responsible, the Wyoming Legislature wants them to go broke if they need medical attention (HB 108, SF 61) and it wants to give them more choices on coverage, ranging from lousy to none at all (HB 128).

Coming from a state where I had a plan that included dental, a mere $15 co-pay for all office visits and allowances for complimentary therapies, such as chiropractic and acupuncture, I believe that Wyoming can do much better, and sacrificing quality for cost only works to the benefit of insurance providers, and if you don’t see this then maybe you need to ask yourself if you’re affected by it (i.e. whether you make enough dough that it’s not your problem).
As of Tuesday by deadline, HB 128 and SF 61 have passed their respective houses and have been amended by the complimenting houses. JHW
PERMALINK:
We can do much better | Planet JH News Article: Editorial

Leave a Comment