Tuesday, March 22, 2011

In response to Dr. Squires's "Facts are stubborn things"...

This post is in response to Dr. James Squires' post found here:
http://endowmentforhealth.typepad.com/insight/2011/03/facts-are-stubborn-things.html



In the spirit of sticking with the facts, a law may be the law of the land until and unless the SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that it IS constitutional while we wait; it just means it is the law of the land, and a free society is free to debate the constitutionality in the mean time. I assume you're opposed to the President's decision to ignore DOMA as well (since it's the law of the land given that the SCOTUS hasn't ruled otherwise)? The FACT is that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the people (the 10th Amendment preserves the rest for the states and for the people), and one of those powers is to regulate interstate commerce - this is the power that supporters of the law claim justify the law constitutionally.  We, who disagree contend that where a private citizen chooses not to engage in commerce, there is no commerce to be regulated, thus the penalties doled out by the federal government for not engaging in commerce fall outside of the powers delegated to them to regulate.  


You've pointed out 5 facts which I will address with my opinion now - as your implication appears to be that ACA addresses them (which is also merely opinion)...


1- Health care costs contribute to national debt.  I agree, which is why I would have addressed it in the opposite direction; eliminating the requirement that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay.  Subsidizing something ALWAYS gets you more of it, and providing health care to those who choose not to acquire insurance on the backs of those of us who do and the taxpayer needs to stop.


2- Health care costs in NH are among the highest in the country.  This may be true, but it is due to Jeanne Shaheen's SB711 taking effect in 1995.  Her bill was a naive attempt to help those without coverage (on the backs of those of us with it) by eliminating any ability of providers to deny coverage.  When the bill passed, NH had 12 providers and 10.0% of the population was uninsured.  By 1997 the number was 5 (and I think it has gone down to 3 now IIRC).  The FACT is that when you force companies to lose money, they will stop doing business with you.  That lack of competition (driven out with good intentions of a utopia where everyone has access to million dollar care even if they can't afford it) results in higher prices - that is economic FACT.  Insurance is risk-mitigation and the companies who provide it are calculating gamblers; when they see a losing horse, they won't bet on it; SB711 branded NH a losing horse.


3- The cost of health care plays a major role in business decisions.  I agree completely, so let's stop doing things legislatively that increase those costs (like SB711 did and ACA is already proving to do).


4- We spend more on treating disease than preventing it.  That's because treating disease is expensive; and we can't prevent everything.  Further, no amount of legislation aimed at providing access to cheap/free care to those who can't afford it will prevent people from not going to the doctor when they are healthy. People get sick; it's a fact of life, and death is the only certainty.  


5- 110,000 to 130,000 people in NH are uninsured.  As it has been, so it will ever be.  We have people who make bad decisions in life, they chose to do drugs, partake in pre-marital sex, gamble, steal, etc.  We also have people who simply fall on bad times and need some help.  We may never know what percentages of those numbers of uninsured fall into which categories, but I know people in different categories, and some I am willing to and do help personally, others not so much. The government mandating that people subsidize one-another while eliminating any choice on who they help takes away their right to help those in need as they see fit and subsidizes those who've made poor decisions while mitigating the risks inherent in those decisions.  Government "take-over" or regulation or whatever other name you want to use isn't going to solve our problems; it will exacerbate them.


Are insurance companies all good? No. Is some reform needed in our system? Sure. One thing I do know though is facts are facts and merely presenting 5 points and inferring that ACA is the golden solution to deal with them without any evidence that it will is drivel and falls into the same category of noise of merely calling the bill unconstitutional without presenting any evidence.

No comments:

Post a Comment