How to Fix Health Care Without Spending a Dime (Part 2 of 2)

Uploaded by shanedk on 13.03.2010

Did you know that the government gave the AMA monopoly power, making them the ONLY organization
in the country capable of granting medical licenses? The reason why was that health care
was too cheap, and the AMA lobbied Congress to give them a monopoly, so that they could
limit the number of licenses given, reducing the supply of doctors, thus increasing the
amount doctors get paid. This was ostensibly done to save the health care system from bankruptcy.
In reality, it's just another government monopoly that makes things more expensive for you.
Is the AMA the only group on the planet who can possibly license physicians? What, were
they specially ordained by God? Were they sent here from the planet Krypton and given
special powers from Earth's yellow sun? I'm not saying eliminate or break up the AMA;
just take away their monopoly power and allow other organizations to license physicians.
Once again, this will save you money and not cost a dime of taxpayer money, so can anyone
give me a rational reason for not doing this?
Health savings accounts should allow individuals to save on taxes and build up enough money
to cover medical expenses when they occur. This would put them in greater control of
their healthcare choices. They should also be able to use it to pay insurance premiums,
which you can't do right now, and you should get every penny of the interest.
Right now, millions of Americans are completely dependent on their employers for health insurance.
This not only removes their choice of insurance companies, it also reduces the ability of
workers to change jobs in order to improve their own financial situation.
According to the Towers Watson 2009 Health Care Cost Survey, corporations on average
spent around $800 a month for their employees' health benefits. Make no mistake: that is
$800 a month that would have gone to you otherwise; your employer subtracted that amount when
your pay was set. What if they could put that money into a health savings account, and you
could use that money to buy your own health insurance? You might find a really good plan
that covers what you need for $400 a month--or even less if we get competition back into
the insurance industry--and that would mean that the other $400 will stay in the account
collecting interest, which you could use toward your deductible or anything else the insurance
plan doesn't cover.
Your health insurance company and plan should be YOUR choice, not your employer's--and not
some bureaucrat's, either. Again, this could easily be done without government spending
a dime, and again if you can think of ANY rational reason to not do this, let's hear
Congress could do these things ANY time they wanted, without costing the taxpayers a dime.
YOU would be the customer, not your employer, not your insurance company, and not the government.
YOU would be in charge. YOU would determine what is needed. YOU would determine what is
a fair price. Doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies would have to compete for your business.
Inevitably, this would lower prices dramatically while increasing quality--with no waiting
lists or other forms of rationing, and no dramatic increase in unfunded liabilities.
Lower prices, better quality, more choices, all without costing the taxpayers a single
penny? Again, give me a good, solid, logical, rational reason for NOT doing it!
The insurance companies don't want that. The health care lobbyists don't want that. The
pharmaceutical companies don't want that. Barack Obama doesn't want that. But I hate
to break this to you: THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU. They're not doing these things because,
even though all of us stand to gain under them, they themselves would lose.
If you're still in favor of your pet government health care solution, then at least give me
one good reason for NOT trying all of this first. Why not try it and see what happens,
and go from there? Especially since that none of this involves applying force--in fact,
it REMOVES force; none of it involves taxation--in fact, it GREATLY reduces the financial burden
of individuals and families; none of it reduces anyone's choice--in fact, it increases EVERYONE'S
choice. So give me one good, rationally-defensible reason for not doing it.
Let's take our health care back from the profit-mongers--both in corporations AND in government.