There should never be “” after some sentences.but” But too often this word comes up, and what follows inevitably becomes a justification for something horrifying.
The worst example of 2024 happened just recently, when liberals online and even some Democrats expressed their opposition to political violence when someone assassinated United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. But…” that's when he said. Be agitated as a progressive anti-capitalist about health insurance.
That's terrible, especially that Give the alleged murderer exactly the argument you think he wanted.and conditionally he would have chosen it.
Health insurance is an easy target, which is why “I hate health insurance” is so popular. It costs a lot of money and your insurance company may not cover what it should cover.
That last part is the real source of hatred. People live in a world where they believe that insurance companies deny coverage to almost everyone. Of course not for them— The majority of Americans actually like their insurance. The only scary thing is someone else's insurance.
This is similar to Congress in that people see this institution as corrupt even though they like their representatives and usually re-elect them. The difference is, they probably don't pay close attention to what their legislators are doing during the year, but they do pay keen attention to health insurance and how it's working, or not working. That's what I'm aware of.
I thought it was worth considering because so many Democrats are using Mr. Thompson's murder to discuss health care, which will ultimately lead to a government takeover of the entire health care system. Ta. The Heritage Foundation was founded a long time ago, so we have some insight into this issue. I'm also old enough to remember the debate over Obamacare, which Democrats promised would improve the overall situation.
Obviously, that was a lie. Just 14 years later, many of those same Democrats today cite the same frustrations with the Obamacare-era health care industry as they did when they first pushed for Obamacare.
That's because the government has never been able to provide solutions to what ails our health care system. If anything, it was the architect of the problem.
Democrats used to complain that HMOs were the root of health care problems; they created an HMO. Now they are doing the same with Obamacare without acknowledging its parentage.
To them, it's all a game of steps toward complete government takeover of health care.
But before we accept socialism, let's take a moment to look at the issues.
First, everything insurance companies do is highly regulated by both states and (thanks to Obamacare) the federal government. If you hate insurance companies, you hate insurance companies that are operating well within the laws that some angry elected officials voted for.
Secondly, the insurance company cannot prevent the procedure from being carried out, only from being covered. Patients can receive legal treatment and pay for it, or they can fight their insurance company to pay for it. Although that is unrealistic and undesirable, it is not “killing” people. Insurance covers what it covers. If you want more coverage, you'll have to pay for something more comprehensive.
Third, doctors and hospitals can provide their services for free. If the insurance plan does not cover what the doctor thinks the patient needs, the doctor can provide insurance to the patient. carried out by the hospital Tens of billions of dollars in uncompensated medical care is performed each year.Many of them are illegal immigrants. Something more?
I know I sound cynical, but I'm half serious. Rather than eradicating the entire health care system (a system that seems designed to fail to justify further government intervention), we should address those affected by specific problems and leave others alone. What about the solution? This is not how Obamacare works, but unlike Obamacare, that approach could actually improve the situation.
Until insurance is decoupled from employment, and until we have price transparency to educate ourselves as consumers, life-saving or dramatically life-improving treatments will be available to those denied coverage. What about offering tax credits to doctors who provide this? This applies to critical procedures, not elective treatments.
A world where doctors can waive their tax liability by providing services to people who otherwise wouldn't have health insurance and couldn't afford it, on a sliding scale devised by people far smarter than me. Just imagine. There would be no more government power, no higher insurance premiums for everyone, and people would get the care they need in a timely manner.
It would take more than 800 words to explain such a proposal. It would also be necessary to set some limits on medical malpractice lawsuits against such procedures. But it's doable. This involves government, but it is not a “more government” solution. And no one needs to justify murder to do that.
derek hunter isDerek Hunter Podcast HostHe was also a former staffer for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).
