Government should get out of healthcare

The ultimate purpose of ObamaCare is the same purpose that's behind all overbearing government intrusions: to get people used to the idea of letting government make their decisions for them. And how quickly we caved . . . not even the Republicans currently in power are willing to get rid of ObamaCare without replacing it with a plan that is just as flawed. Virtually overnight, we have become infected by the idea that government exists to take care of our health. "Well yes", you say, "but in this case, the new law would be so much better than the old one." Smoke, mirrors, and trick band aids do not alter this one basic fact: anything that puts government in charge of the personal decisions that we ourselves should be making is bad.
Advertiser reader Bill Weightman maintains that Democrats and Republicans need to work together on healthcare. I maintain that Democrats and Republicans need to get out of the way and let the free market make the decisions. No one reading this newspaper today is old enough to have experienced the genius of a true free market system firsthand. Over the previous one hundred-plus years, government intervention has distorted everything about the competitive free market that Americans used to enjoy. It was an extraordinary structure that empowered people, jobs, businesses, and personal wealth. In this case, under a free market system, the best estimates of monthly premium rates for excellent health insurance coverage come to about $50 per person. This is affordable by nearly everyone, including college students and many low income families.
Blogger Kira Davis notes that, "We already have laws and measures in every state that prevent any person from being denied vital treatment due to inability to pay. We already have Medicaid and Medicare and myriad state programs designed to provide healthcare services to people who can’t afford them."
The U.S. healthcare system remains one of the most envied in the world. Still, why can't we have an open market that can cross state lines and drive the kind of competition that always brings lower prices and better products? If an insurance company in Kickapoo, Kansas, has the rate and coverage I want, why can't I as a New Jersey resident purchase one of their policies? Why can't I get an affordable policy tailored to my needs — one that wouldn't pay for the transgender, abortion, and aromatherapy policies of others? Why can't I get a policy that is a true insurance policy and not a thinly disguised welfare scheme for others who do not live their lives in the low-risk ways I choose to?
As long as we let it, government will insert itself into endeavors that should rightly be left to free market business procedures. We have foolishly allowed this intrusion, and that is why we're stuck with Obama's disaster of a program which, among other huge problems, has cursed subscribers with deductables reaching almost $600 on average. When government gets involved, services become more expensive. 'Twas ever thus, and this will never change.
Unfortunately, the baser part of our human nature will always respond to the perception of getting something for nothing. This was how ObamaCare was marketed to the populace, and when it was finally figured out that it had nothing to do with real health care but actually was a total re-vamping of insurance company procedures, it was too late. As blogger Davis writes, "Most people were not aware that this was simply a change in insurance laws and had no direct relation to actual services. The whole thing was just a shell game, an attempt to wrest government control over one fourth of the nation’s economy. It did nothing in the way of healthcare except to make it more expensive."
And all because we thought it would be wonderful to have the government be our nanny. How extraordinary our lives would be if we were willing to grow up and learn from our mistakes.
Sue Speck
Vernon