Left vs Left Partisanship

My friend Jack forwarded me an email that provides a slight glimmer of hope that we just be able to avoid the nightmare of a government takeover of healthcare.

Thanks Jack.

The email came to him from MoveOn.org. It seems they are not at all happy with the direction of healthcare reform in the Senate. They are insistent that the legislation contain a "public option." The inclusion of which will mean that the bill will never make it out of the senate.

I don't suppose there is any point in arguing with Reich and company that if they wanted competition what they should be doing is combing through current laws and regulations and removing barriers to competition among private enterprises. The left has made the argument that part of the problem is that the insurance industry in some states is dominated by one or two major players. They never acknowledge the role of government regulation and market distortion in creating that situation. Their solution is more government. More government control of the economy. And in the end more government control of individual lives.


Given that a bill with a public option will more than likely fail a cloture vote in the Senate, by all means my socialist friends petition your fellow travelers in the Senate to insist that it be included. While your at it, be sure to threaten them with electoral challenges if their efforts on this issue are not sufficiently "progressive." The insertion of a "poison pill" into a piece legislation to insure its defeat is a time honored practice. When the majority does you the favor of insisting on including a poison pill in their own legislation it kind of makes you smile!

Click here to add your name:
http://pol.moveon.org/gift/?id=18245-15519988-ADjCAYx&t=3



This is a rather amusing admission. "We have know idea what this compromise is but we oppose it because it is not exactly what we demand. And we are going to hold our breath until we get what we want."


Reich's understanding of the market is that is that companies see it in their best interest to price their product so high that only a few can afford to purchase it. It doesn't work that way. I'm sure if they were free of massive regulation that limits their access to markets and mandates of what coverage must be included, the insurance companies would love the opportunity to innovate and compete with each other.

Here's how it works. Monte Blanc sells a roller ballpen for $180. Not everyone can afford to spend $180 for a pen nor do a vast majority of consumers want to spend $180 for a pen. Are those people left without options for writing? Absolutely not. You can buy a dozen Papermate Write Brothers pens for $5. Why does it work this way? Because there is no government regulation that requires that all pens have "stainless steel tip; Precious resin; Removable Cap; Platinum-plated rings with embossed logo; Platinum-plated clip." There is no government regulation prohibiting selling pens across state lines.

And Papermate is not the consumer's only choice - BIC sells a 10-pack of competing pens for $2.00. Staples, Walmart, OfficeMax and many other retailers all sell a competing private label product. And there are many offerings in between. (The Monte Blanc example is far from the extreme high-end it was just the first one that showed up on my Amazon search. Want to spend a couple of thousand on a pen - they've got that covered for you.)

Could insurance companies offer innovative policies if they were free to do so? Absolutely. Here's one idea I'll give them for free - since they probably can't do it under current regulations anyway.

This is policy designed to be sold to a younger consumer. Offer a fixed amount of Major medical coverage say $30,000 and $3,000 for minor medical for a year. (Want higher amounts pay a higher premium. Want a lower premium by less coverage.) At the end of the year a percentage of the balance of your major medical limit gets added to the next year's coverage and the entire balance of the minor medical gets rolled over. At certain benchmark points (say every time your coverage doubles) your premium would be adjusted to reflect the increase in coverage. If at any time you suffer a major medical expense that exceeds your coverage for the year you can access the minor medical funds to pay down those costs. If you use the entire balance of either account in a year they will reset to the last premium adjustment point for the next year. If your premium adjusted when your coverage reached $60,000 that would be the minimum you would start with for any year.

If you stay healthy until you reach your senior years you would have a substantial amount of insurance "in the bank." If you carefully manage your minor medical expenses and don't run to the doctor every time you sneeze you'll have nice chunk of minor medical coverage built up too.

I'm sure if Blue Cross were offering this plan nationwide, the folks at Aetna would be having many brainstorming sessions to come up with something better.


There is midterm election next year. It represents a chance for the citizens to reform the government. I think Washington meeds to be sent a message that the idea of "reform" should always mean less government intrusion into our lives. And if Robert Reich and MoveOn succeed in killing the federal healthcare takeover by insisting on having it their way, those of us who value our freedom will owe them a thank you.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:38 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment