There are two competing health care reform arguments: 1) Increased federal involvement; and 2.) Free market health care. As such, I strongly believe the free market, not the federal government can best
improve: 1) Access to care; 2) Quality of care; and 3) Lower costs. However, no Congressional legislation currently proposed actually addresses any of the concerns shared by a vast majority of the
American people. Indeed, if enacted, the current House bill, will achieve the exact opposite.
Now, what can be done differently? In brief, there are many alternatives to partial (or full) nationalization of the current health care system. A few include: 1.) Allowing interstate health insurance company
competition; 2) eliminating “pre-existing” condition underwriting discrimination; 3) promoting high deductible plans (low premium) coupled with HSAs.
Furthermore, the notion of so-called health care “overhaul” is ridiculous on its face. Successful for-profit enterprise rarely initiates widespread, costly and potentially irreversible changes, particularly in the
currently embraced Congressional “hurry up” offense. In brief, I speak neither as a Republican nor a Democrat, but as a student of economics. Therefore, we can either increase market efficiencies vis-à-
vis the right reform or bloat an already costly (and inefficient) medical system which discourages individuals to make wise medical decisions in a manner they see fit — the choice is clear.
DAVID M. MERCER
Manassas
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement