In Barack Obama’s short seven months in power, he has rocked the United States with a series of very radical changes. The massive stimulus plan of over three quarters of a trillion dollars; the Waxman-Markey energy bill [read: carbon market/tax]; and now forced health care. Under one of the most sinister plans to be yet proposed by a government, Senate Democrats would fine Americans who refuse to buy medical coverage with penalties of up to $1,000. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that these fines would raise $36 billion in revenue over the next decade. Individuals who refuse, or can’t afford coverage, would be slapped with the penalty, with harsher ones for families who refuse.
The change is a marked one from the campaign trail that Barack Obama travelled down as Senator. During his battle against Hillary Clinton’s proposal to resort to penalties in order to achieve universal health care, he attacked his opponent:
“You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”
In this new era of health care, Americans would be as much required to get coverage as they are to pay for auto insurance. While the Obama government has promised to subsidize lower-income families, it still sounds like being on the wrong end of the gun. Driving an automobile is ultimately a choice, and users are forced to buy insurance as a result of that choice. Imposing mandatory health care is akin to making financial decisions on behalf of the citizen. It’s a fundamental collectivist precept, that demands that all people pay for the welfare of all, rather than the individualistic policies that the nation has been known for.
That’s why they’re called “shared responsibility payments”, the notion being to move Americans into a style more like ours in Canada, where health care coverage is not an option that can be balanced in the fiscal household budget. President Obama claims that the move is based on reform that keep private insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with health issues, arguing a state-run insurance plan would help workers and families.
Challenging this notion is the state of U.S. Medicare, which has been a costly drain on the country. While the administration of public insurance health care in the U.S. is lower than private insurance, it doesn’t make public insurance the better option. Private coverage operates in the free market where rates are determined by the dynamics of supply, demand, and advertising. Medicare doesn’t require advertising, since it’s a solitary governmental insurance agency. But where public insurance fails is in the primary procurement of operating profits, a necessary incentive in any market-driven enterprise. Medicare doesn’t generate profits, yet it bears the financial risk for operating a program prone to great economic costs, which are then reflected in the burgeoning costs of the federal government. Universal health care is similarly bankrupting the government in Canada, with recent estimates placing the burden at $4,867 per person in 2007.
The greatest fear among those living in the U.S. who favour the free market is that it is yet another government program that will lead to a government monopoly. Universal health care carries the entire burden of risk, meaning that no matter what happens, nobody goes uncovered [a source of pride for Canadians]. But this guarantee artificially lower’s the plan’s capital reserve requirements, which would give an edge over private plans that no company could compete with. Beginning down this road really means the collectivization of health care into the universalist doctrine that is so limiting, and ultimately unaffordable, here in Canada.
July 2, 2009 at 10:17 pm
[...] we know it. Posted on 3 July 2009 by harebell While taking in a national post and national conservative pundit’s recent post I was stunned by the lack of real, rational thinking. Everyone will become sick at one time or [...]
July 3, 2009 at 3:25 am
Good post, Raphael!
It’s the Waxman-Markey carbon tax that really bothers me because that will negatively affect the Canadian economy.
July 3, 2009 at 9:34 am
Let’s hope, Joanne, that the American people stop watching the Michael Jackson coverage and start paying attention to what’s going on in Washington. Hope they bombard their reps and this dastardly bill is quashed in the Senate. Although I doubt that will happen, the Dems have the numbers now, especially with that fool Al Franken now being declared the winner in Minnesota.
July 3, 2009 at 1:08 pm
With respect to health care and insurance, the U.S. is possibly the lousiest model to pursue. I believe health care in the U.S. cost about 50% more than the rest of the OECD countries (as a percent of GDP). You quote a figure of just under $5,000 per person in Canada for health care; a dozen years ago I was discussing health care with someone in the U.S while at a convention. He was self-employed and at the time was paying $700 per month for coverage.
Re: ‘Private coverage operates in the free market where rates are determined by the dynamics of supply, demand, and advertising”
As I see it, the problem of private health insurance is this: insurance generally is based on risk assessment (on the part of the companies) and risk management (by purchasers). The purchasers can manage risk to a large degree – i.e. don’t drink and drive to lower car insurance, move out of flood plains to lower house insurance, etc. One can’t manage getting older or having an inheritable disease and why would a private insurance company want insure such a person and at what premium?
OTH – I’m certainly not a defender of the status quo in Canada. It seems each country needs the other to point out the evils of changing healthcare policy. God forbid each would actually search out best practices from around the world (and yes, I am including instances of private, for profit care). I find it ironic that a good example in the Toronto area is the Shouldice Hospital which is privately run but receives payment from OHIP (the hospital was grandfathered). Think of the Shouldice as “Hernias ‘R Us”; they specialize in one procedure and do it extremely well and efficiently.
July 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm
John,
You’re right about the GDP to per capita spending ratio from the OECD. I was looking it up today. So no, the U.S. model isn’t one to pursue. But neither is a single-payer system. I think what is needed is a hybrid model which allows for both, but which doesn’t undermine the private sector insurance models for those who can afford them. The problem in the U.S. is the lack of affordable care, while the problem in Canada is the belief that any privatization would subvert the entire system.
We currently don’t have any choice in Canada, while in America there is a problem of having choice, but not affordable choice. A blend of ideas may work, but it doesn’t sound like what Obama’s proposing.
July 4, 2009 at 8:12 am
Raph:
Here is the link to the Shouldice that I referred to:
http://www.shouldice.com/
This is the kind of model I would like to see more of – a privately run clinic that OHIP will pay for. They specialize in certain types of hernia operations and are extremely efficient in what they do.
July 4, 2009 at 10:26 pm
There are private clinics in Vancouver as well, but private health care is still restricted under the Canada Health Act. So ultimately we won’t see a real improvement in our care until we allow more development in this area.