You Cannot Have it Both Ways

This week I have heard a couple things regarding the Health Care Bill that I find interesting.

A poll shows that the majority of Americans do not want any government money being used to fund abortions. I think the number is around 60% that support the amendment to the bill that prevents federal money being used for abortions, either through a public option or through subsidies for other plans.

Okay. That's fine. My personal stance is that the government pays for a lot of stuff that I don't think it should pay for (Blackwater contractors comes to mind) but you take the good with the bad. I am not going to prevent the government from building an army because I don't like how they spent some of the money.

The problem I have is that people complaining that they do not want their money being used to fund abortions don't realize that they are most likely funding abortions today. Their private insurance company that they are so keen on keeping is using their money to pay for all kinds of things for other people.

Do they think that the premiums they pay go into a special box and are only used for their maladies? Of course that is not the case. The money from premiums goes into a pool and everyone in the program gets money from that pool. You have no idea what your specific dollars are going towards and it is really none of your business. Would you want everyone else in your plan looking over your records and deciding if you should get that Viagra you have been wanting or if your child can get braces? Then stay out of other people's business!

If people want no part of any insurance plan that covers abortion, then they should take a close look at their own private plan and they best opt out if they disagree with it.


The other issue has to do with this whole notion of people not wanting the government to control healthcare because they do not want it rationed or risk 'Death Panels'. As a result, people are indicating that they want to make sure they can still keep their current private health insurance.

Again, the logic is flawed. They believe that their private insurance company is not rationing healthcare. Um. How many restrictions are there in your plan regarding what treatments they will cover and how often you can get them? Any restrictions fall into the category of rationed healthcare. And I would argue that a private, for-profit, company is much more likely to ration your healthcare in the interest of their own profits than the government or a non-profit provider.

Let's take for example the recent news about the new United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines stating that women between 40 and 49 no longer need to get annual mammogram screenings. This news has met with harsh criticism from doctors, patients, and the American Cancer Society. People are concerned that their healthcare provider will use these guidelines as an excuse to no longer cover annual mammograms for women under 50.

But wait. Aren't these the same private insurers that you do not want to lose? Aren't these the same companies that you are defending against a government takeover of healthcare? How can you argue in support of keeping your private insurance provider while at the same time worrying that they will use this new report to start rationing your coverage?

I ask this. Who is more likely to jump on a report like this and stop covering such exams?

The government or non-profit provider is already paying for the exams. Since they are not seeking profits, it does not hurt them to continue to pay for the exams.

The private insurance provider needs to bring in as much profit as possible for their stake-holders. If they can save expenses by cutting coverage, then they have every reason to do so. In fact, according to Dodge v Ford Motor Company the board of directors are under an obligation to maximize profits at the expense of their employees and customers. Do not think for a minute that they have your best interests at heart.