Obamacare

The WSJ has a pretty good op-ed piece today that breaks down the real motivation behind the many arguments related to universal health care. I personally support universal health care, but not the socialistic model proposed by our current leaders. The difference between the two lies with control of the system.

The concept of modern insurance has its roots with the first life insurance program invented by Benjamin Franklin. FDR expanded the concept with his new deal, and the US economy furthered it as employers competed for workers after WWII. The resulting sense of entitlement to free health care has created misplaced expectations for funding health care. We all need to eat better, exercise more, and become prudent consumers of health care. We should expect our health insurance to behave similar to home or auto insurance: it covers catastrophic expenses but not every nickel and dime.

Two comments from the op-ed that I really like:

1) health care inflation results more from r&d funding and technological advancements than it does from simple cost of living increases. Comparing the cost of health care today to the cost of health care in, say, 1960, is like comparing the cost of a big screen HD TV to a black and white model.

2) What is your first impression to the phrase "public housing?" You're likely to react the same to public health insurance. I don't look forward to governmental bureaucrats determining what treatments and costs are fair and what aren't. How far would they go? Is steak more egregious than hamburger? Is McDonald's OK but Applebee's not?

If we want to be France, let's just say so. But, don't tell me we will be the capitalistic leader of the free world and turn our lifestyle into Poland.