The key has always been about serving society by using the tools of capitalism and free market and not the other way around i.e. serving the ideology of capitalism and the free-market. That is why we have a regulated free market (kinda oxymoronic) - these regulations came about over time as societies faced crisis'es and imbalances caused by the free-market.
The goal of reform should be to provide complete and efficient health-care to most in society and use the free-market as a tool to achieve this. We have had a pure for-profit health insurance system for the last 40 years and we see the results are pure evil i.e. it has negative impacts on society (see my blog entry regarding this topic: Insider's Case for Health Care Reform). The Health Plans merely cherry pick the healthiest and find ways to screw everyone when they get old or sick. Regardless of whether its employer based or not - as long as its pure for-profit with no regulations - they will continue to cherry pick for maximum profits. You will only find this out when you start getting sick - they will gladly take your money now while you are healthy and promise you the world.
Obama is trying to find the right balance of primarily serving society while trying to leverage free-market profit incentives. He is trying to put in the right regulations to serve society (for-profit companies will have no incentives otherwise). Additionally, a Govt. Plan will create an honest upper-limit of profit-making that other private health-plans will not be able to cross - thereby keeping pure for-profit incentives in check within the health-insurance industry (which has been proven for the last 40 years to result in societal evil). As part of this balancing act the Health care delivery systems (i.e. clinics, hospitals, doctors etc.) will continue to operate in the realm of free-market as they always did.
2 comments:
if you embrace individualism or totalitarianism. I think you have a very skeptical view of the health care system.
I guess I wonder why is it health care employees aren't allowed to do their job and make a nice living? It makes no sense to me to say company A can't make as large a profit as it possibly can while company B has to be handcuffed?
You feel that we owe society to make health care affordable for all. Well that's a very childish view.
Brian, no one mentioned totalitarism, individualism or even socialism.
We regulate all kinds of profit incentives today - For example: we regulate drugs, chemicals and products in general that are not safe for the people - if we allowed the free-market to reign - these companies would make a killing in profits before people realized they were bad. Regulating the free-market to meet society's needs has always been the policy in the U.S - no-one would choose to live in an un-regulated society - it is about striking the right balance. Also, If you didn't realize it we have a socialized system today for the Police, Firemen, and V.A. Health-Care to name a few - everyone takes these for granted today.
I don't want to see Health-care individuals living standards affected - and I don't expect they will. As far as Company A & B ... I believe in fairness. I did not mention anything regarding this - unless you are comparing companies from health-insurance vs. companies in other sectors. Again, its about a balance between society's needs and the free-market.
Post a Comment