Health Care Reform

Health Care reform has gotten plenty of attention the last few months, and for good reason. The cost of providing health care and the level of care that best befits one’s family are important issues. Anyone would be hard pressed to successfully argue that improvements are not needed.

The ongoing health care reform discussion presented by the President and Congress are based on two major points:

1) Our current health care system is too expensive.
2) Health care should be provided to everyone, mainly the uninsured.


I’d like to air out my concerns by addressing both.

(1) Health care is expensive. Most people will agree with that. Estimates place health care costs in the United States at about 15% of Gross Domestic Product. That’s a significant amount of jack. The Federal government is looking to interject itself as the solution by actually providing health care. Does anybody really expect that health care will become less expensive if the Federal government takes over?

From an expenses standpoint, this health care reform has absolutely no merit. The private sector is, and will continue to be, a less expensive option than any version of Government health care. As the saying goes, ‘If you think it’s expensive now, wait until it’s free!’


(2) So you want the uninsured not just to be insured, but to be provided health care at no charge. That sounds like an expensive proposition. This in itself seems to defeat the first point.

There’s some disagreement as to the actual number of Americans without health insurance, but let’s go with the high estimate of 15%, 45 million. Are we really going to change the entire health care system to accommodate 15%? Does that not sound extreme? In the least it sounds like a reckless thing to do.


A few additional issues to discuss in the face of the proposed legislation:

(a) We are told that people will be able to retain their employer-provided plans if they prefer them to the public option, the Government plan. That’s baloney! Once the government offers a free plan, employers will more than likely drop the employer-health care benefit feature. ‘Why continue with this expense if government provides it at no cost,’ employers will ponder. This employer-option will cease to exist.

(b) Health care options would decrease. As the other health insurance options disappear in the wake of the Government’s plan, options for health care will actually become fewer, not more as is being boasted with this reform. That’s too bad, this result of fewer options. People need options because we all place different priorities and values on health insurance and the level of care people want depending on what stage in life they’re in. Whether a person is single, married with young kids, or elderly drives this sliding scale of need.

A one-size-fits-all plan is inappropriate for health care. In fact, one-size-fits-all does not work outside the realm of tube socks and spandex.

Think of houses, for example. People place value on different features. Some folks may want a fancy house, ranch style for others, a two story home versus a one story, and beach front preference to mountain areas. Our current health care system does offer different choices. A government plan ultimately stifles choice as explained above.

The same level of health care for all is a bad idea. This is especially so when this ‘same level’ relegates everyone to a sub par standard. People want different things and strive to complete their own dreams, desires, and goals. If some desire, have planned for, and have secured the level of care they want for themselves they should be able to have it. These freedoms of choice are motivation for people to improve themselves and their circumstances to meet their goals and provide for their family.


Health care is in need of reform. Perhaps these reform ideas are worthy of consideration:

1) Amend the way medical services are charged. How about paying for medical and health care based on results rather than services performed and medication dispensed? That pair of $50 aspirins maybe won’t be prescribed unnecessarily if there’s no 1,000% mark up.

2) Malpractice law suits. If a suit is deemed to have no merit, then the claimant and their law firm should be subject to absorb the entire cost of all legal expenses or a significant penalty. The desired effect is to discourage frivolous lawsuits. This will bring down the cost of medical malpractice insurance which will result in a lower cost of practicing medicine.


Health care is an important topic that is worthy of more detail than these abbreviated offerings. But if I don’t cut this down to a more digestible size nobody would bother to read this but Mom Klem. With that, I close.
-klem