Health Care, American-style
So, after at least half a year of intense debate, political haggling and a spirited back-and-forth, we have the following ground-breaking legislation to transform the American health care system. In short, our legislators have determined that what we need is almost exactly that which we already have, but that we would like to pay much, much more for it.
Positives
- It will cover more people.
- It will be illegal to deny coverage for preëxisting conditions.
Negatives
- It won’t be single-payer.
- It doesn’t provide universal coverage (dozens of millions will continue to have no insurance).
- There is no public option.
- There will be no expansion of Medicare.
- Negotiation for medicine prices will continue to be illegal.
- It will continue to be illegal to import medicines.
- The connection between employment and insurance is strengthened, rather than abolished.
- It makes it illegal to not purchase a product from a private corporation, regardless of the quality of the product.[1]
- More businesses than ever will be legally required to provide insurance.
- Some private individuals will be legally required to purchase insurance that they can’t pay for, even with assistance.
- There are no real provisions to clamp down on out-of-control spending and costs.
At $1 trillion over the next ten years, this turd is vastly overpriced[2] and hugely ineffective at actually providing medical care.[3] It is, however, extraordinarily effective at funneling public funds to those that matter the most, our lords and masters, the large private corporations of America[4]. These guys must be really happy with the health care bill, as it will give them much more public money with which they will presumably optimize the health care system on their own, as the free market dictates. Just remember that “optimized” to health-care providers means generating maximum profit, not proving maximum-quality or affordable care to the most people.[5]
[1] In that, the U.S. has managed to move a bit closer to the Swiss system, one that was discussed often during the health-care debate. Switzerland also requires all inhabitants (citizens and immigrants) to have some form of coverage. If they can’t afford it, then a basic level of insurance is provided. If you can afford it, but don’t want it, too bad.↩
[2] On the other hand, for a country willing to piss away $700 billion per year on its military, perhaps $100 biliion per year for a little more health care isn’t so bad.↩
[3] Those endorsing the plan generally justify their position with the argument that “anything is better than nothing” because at least marginally more people will be covered by medical insurance. Curiously, this logic doesn’t apply to more purely social programs that actually help people without simultaneously massively subsidizing huge industries. There is a theory that this position can be explained by the degree to which poor people and large corporations can affect reëlection. At any rate, the “no matter what the price” argument is ridiculous: instead of paying $4 for a coffee, would you be willing to pay $4 million instead? Of course not; instead, you would (collectively) stop buying coffee until the price came down. The government, as an entity about to pump $100 billion per year into health care, is in an extremely strong position and yet, mysteriously, ends up on all fours. Funny that.↩
[4] Well, they’re mostly from America, though it’s hard to tell nowadays, what with mergers and acquisitions and offshoring in the Cayman islands. Suffice it to say that they’re large corporations with many connections, much influence and are therefore much more important than you.↩
[5] “Maximum-quality, affordable care for the most people” being my personal definition of the kind of health-care system a country should strive for.↩