The Real Truth - Part 1

I continue to hear congressmen and pundits say: "we can't afford not to pass this legislation." In truth, this is a tactic meant to delude you into thinking this is the only way reform can happen. But, this isn't the only path to reform. Does it make sense to pass a bill that can't live up to the promises of politicians? In fact, it's a bill they have tried to rush through. If they want to get it right, why push so hard to get it through so quickly? Like many bills, there are many unintended and unforeseen consequences which are not considered. In this case, the consequences would be disastrous.

Let's look at some of the consequences of the current legislation.

One of the main arguments put forth by the Obama administration is that creating a government health insurance option (the so-called "public plan") would create more competition and thus improve the price of health insurance for patients. First, you must remember that nothing is free. This is not free healthcare, just another avenue to try to cover everyone. But, one of the main downfalls of this approach is simple to understand. Since a government option would be subsidized by the government and would never be allowed to fail it would more likely stifle competition than create it. If you stifle competition, prices go up or covered services are reduced.

As I've mentioned, the proposed legislation would force you into the government plan if you switched jobs or lost insurance with your employer. This would push more and more people into the government insurance plan and, over time, disrupt competition from private companies. This, in turn, would lead to decreased innovation.

If the vast majority of the population were covered by a government-run plan, hospitals would have no incentive to be better than the one down the road by offering cutting edge services and treatments. The same goes for individual physicians. Innovation and progress in medicine is largely due to new technology and medications. Clearly, it costs a lot of money to develop such advancements. But, government plans such as the one being proposed don't foster innovation because expensive. For instance, private plans are more likely to cover a newly developed cancer drug that costs $2000/month. If fewer and fewer people receive insurance coverage under private plans, the likelihood is that the use of such treatments would decrease and there would be little incentive for companies to invest in their development.

Clearly, stifling both competition and innovation would be problematic for the overall health and well being of Americans. Innovation in our healthcare system has been a driving force in improving American life expectancy and galvanizing the economy for the last 30 years.