The plan had not been laid out exactly. Questions that were never entertained before were suddenly thrown into light. Questions such as ‘Who should pay for the government option for a federally funded insurance plan’? Having no precedence at such exercise prior to summer of 2009, Obama thought hard about it for a second. The public was
demanding an answer ‘˜RIGHT NOW , he must come up with one. He had no time to think. He drew a blank. Then, the luxury and excess of the rich as seen from a Southside Chicagoan kicked in, and with no clear paths to where greenbacks lied, he quickly retorted: ‘the rich’. They have money, of all people, right?
Yes, ‘the rich’ have the money, hence ‘the rich’. But should they bear the brunt of the nation s healthcare cost? That s a bit farfetched. I would argue that part of the vehement oppositions to Obama s ‘government options’ program at least came from the fact that individuals were dissatisfied with this answer.
Take a look at this answer ‘“ ‘the rich should pay for government option’. It sounds like piracy, legalized piracy. The pirates are adrift at sea, with no food or supply, they see that other boats have plenty, so they sail towards those boats, not to beg for some, but to simply take the supplies away from the boats that have plenty. Why should the other boats give these pirates anything? Why shouldn t they fight to preserve their supplies in case rainy days may be ahead? There are no reasons that ‘˜just because the rich are rich, they should pay for everything under the sun .
Another problem with his answer, is that it diminishes incentives. In a Capitalistic society such as the U.S., hard work, genius ideas, abilities, are rewarded monetarily, given environments of fair competition. If rich individuals, by virtue of their work, should have their wealth taken away simply because of their success, then the case for their hard work, genius, abilities, may be diminished. What is theirs is theirs, if they rightfully earned them. There is no reason that because someone is rich, that they owe anyone anything. If they feel obligated for the greater social good, they are free to, and some like Gates, Buffett have, spend their wealth for the less privileged, as they see fit. It is their money. The government has no right, no rationale, in taking their wealth away from them simply because they are rich.
Perhaps this is one reason that the ‘˜government option program may seem a bit Socialist. No doubt, I would even argue Communist. The idea of helping the uninsured was the right one, but how it was to be paid for did not seem right.
So how should the ‘˜government option be paid for? The health industry itself is likened a self-contained ecosystem. Without major catastrophe, such as a plague or Black Death, the healthcare industry should be able to sustain itself. Insurance companies have so far profited ‘˜more than their fair share by rejecting individuals who would reduce their profitability, i.e. individuals who do not belong in a pool, who have prior medical history, etc. If the current health insurance companies insure those people at the same premium as the others, would they still make a profit? Yes, a little bit less than what they are making now but they will still be profitable. The ‘˜government option is now almost required to exist because the insurance companies have failed to insured the needed. Are their profits well earned, no.
Therefore, the payments for ‘˜government option should come from taxes on the profits of the insurance industry. Some of those profits made by the insurance companies have resulted in millions without coverage, prompting a government option necessary. Government s policies should correct that. The hospitals can also give discounts to government option, as it is under the current medicare system. So can physicians, drug companies, as these parties have pledged. The taxes on the profits from insurance companies may also provide more incentives for privately run insurance companies to do better, be more competitive, so that more individuals will vie for the private option, not the government option. If private insurance companies succeed, the funding and therefore taxes, required for government option are necessarily reduced.
Without major public health catastrophe, the healthcare industry can be self sustaining, and the government need not look outside the industry, to ask for help. Financial services should not have to pay for healthcare while insurance industries continue to profit, manufacturers should not need to foot the bill, teachers should not have to pay for it, nor should the rich. Ask the insurance companies to make a little less profit, ask the hospitals, drug companies, physicians, to charge a little bit less. The problem that brought about government option in the first place arose out of an imbalance within the healthcare industry itself, the industry should think about the issues and help resolve them. They may have to wait an extra year for that new Mercedes, but the peace of mind that they have done their jobs and not left any needy out in the cold should be a greater satisfaction for a healthcare professional, than that new car.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Consti Tution’s ideas were not necessarily bad. I do not know how to use the money already paid out by the public to fund government option. I do not even think it is necessary to do that as the healthcare industry should be able to pay for government option and no one else needs to pay for it. The funds already paid out by the public can be used for other purposes. (like reducing the deficit).
The comment was directed toward CW.
AH!! The million dollar question, how. That I can’t really answer since I don’t have the answer myself. If I did I would be famous. No option should be left off the table until it is deemed totally unworthy. With that I agree completely. It’s a slippery slope to bring public funding into the mix no doubt. There will always be those who don’t want to see their tax dollars mis-spent. Despite the good it might do. The only thing that makes sense to me is to heavily regulate the health industry and mandate certain things such as coverage. I’m not for government intrusion in any way, but unfortunately it makes sense as opposed to the public option. If you want to do business as a health care provided here are the things you MUST do, bang bang bang out those points to them as mandatory. For those who can’t afford coverage medicare and medicade should be fixed to take them on. I think the real problem is that no one has the right answer yet, but we all think we do.
You’re right, and I apologize. Sometimes it’s best to leave the sound of one hand clapping to itself.
You have a valid point, especially in light of the comment another poster made about including the monies already paid out by the public into the mix. My question is- how? I don’t know if public option is the answer, but it needs to be on the table for consideration.
Here here! Now that I can completly get behind.
I do urge for the comments to be a bit more formal and less personal. I simply believe that the healthcare industry can pay for itself, without aids from anyone else, not even the tax payers, if the government plays the card right. It is always interesting to see how government formulate incentives that guided results. The wrong incentives – “everyone should own a home”, resulted in disaster. Let’s not make similar mistakes with public option!
You must be loving the image of me drinking a glass of wine and reading the newspaper, maybe it’s a fantasy of yours. I have to wonder, since you try so hard to bring me to heel…
And for your information, I did make a six-figure income at one point, but realized that the whole life style that went with it was unnecessary, meaningless and full of crap. I felt the same way then that I do now.
Congratulations on your education and a better job. I’ve really been impressed with the way you use the knowledge you’ve obtained and your life experience… maybe those leeches in the social strata below you can one day aspire to be just like you.
Laura misses the point. If that is the case then ANYONE paying taxes should help pay for the public plan. That is fair. Since people who work at the waffle hut pay taxes any way they should also be responsible for paying for the public option since they are members of the public. Simply calling for the redistribution of wealth is no better than championing the poor fry cook. And what does the financial industry have to do with health care? I think Laura is envious of the rich since she seems intent on placing the burden of taxation on their backs so readily. I was a fry cook when I was 18. I made $5.25 an hour and still had to pay taxes. So how does what she suggest help anyone in that tax bracket. That’s why I got an education and a better job. It’s easy to scream “tax the rich” when you are sipping your wine and reading the New Yorker. But when she is considered the rich I’m sure she’ll sing a different tune.
If wages are not reflective of their importance, then that should be fixed – these people could get paid more because of the importance of their work. But that doesn’t mean that just because they are underpaid, the rich is not deserving of their wealth. Yes they hired the accountants, but they did not break any laws hopefully. The accountants gave them the maximum deductions under the rules, what is wrong with that? It doesn’t fix any thing to point a problem at someone else who does not have anything to do with it though simply did not experience the same problem in the first place.
But those who work just as hard, are just as worthy and whose contributions could arguably be even more important to society should go without just because they did not happen to be born to the right people and have the right opportunities? You need to go to Yahoo! and read the list of ten jobs that are vital, but where people onl;y make about $10 an hour. On the list are EMTs, preschool teachers, certified nursing assistants, auto mechanics and the like. You cannot feed, clothe and house yourself and possibly a family and still be able to afford $200 or mors dollars a month for health insurance. Many of these people have to pay for it privately, because their employers do not or cannot offer it. With as much as society relies on them to do for the little they are paid, they don’t deserve health insurance that they can afford? How cynical to say that the very same wealthy class that uses the services they provide for next to nothing is worthy of more consideration.
Plus, all who cry that the rich should not pay because they already pay their fair share have not done their homework. It is a fact that due to deductions and the like, found for them by the CPAs and attorneys they can afford to use, the wealthy actually pay a SMALLER percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. They DON’T pay their fair share. How come that little bit of information never makes it into these discussions? Ross Perot even made a joke about it during his campaign…
For financial services, it is probably normal to get bonuses, but not for people of other industries, so it may seem odd. Just because they were bailed out with taxpayers’ money doesn’t mean that’s right. Look at how much the public resented having to do that. So it is my point precisely that the public should not be paying for government option too, as if the public has to pay for everything. There are no implications that someone making less money is less capable than others, but talents “can” be rewarded with money and that is not wrong. Talent may not always be rewarded in proportional terms but at least in Capitalistic society, it is possible for talent to make more than others who bear less responsibilities when it comes to work. This phenomenon of people getting rich shouldn’t be taken away simply because they’re rich. what should be deterred should be unsavory competitions and tactics.
And I suppose the people from Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sach and the like have earned their billions in bonuses this year paid by companies that would not have survived without my money and yours? And they shouldn’t have any obligation to help support the people who helped pay for their bonuses? When those companies were asked about why they were paying those bonuses, they used the free market as their justification.
Do you think that someone who may not have as high paying of a job does not work hard; as hard as the execs at Citi? Or talent agents? Or actors? Or sports figues? Go to a Waffle House and watch the grill cooks there- tell me YOU could do that job, that it is so easy. Try waiting tables in a busy restaurant. Try putting a roof on a house. I think the reason why certain people are so afraid of socialism is that the value of the labor of “lesser” jobs (and therefore “lesser” people) would become as valuable as the labor of “better” people. That would remove one of the layers of status and the people of this country have a need to point to material wealth as a demonstration of their superiority as a human being.
Just because I can find someone to pay me more than the worth of my labor does not make me a “better” person. It just means that the person paying me isn’t too bright or is trying to justify HIS getting paid too much.