Seb, you provided the point which I was hoping someone would make. It's the argument that political elites need to be in charge of what you pay for.
If the decision of what to pay for, in terms of health care, aren’t made by the consumer (the ones PAYING for it) than the question is WHO?
Who, rather than the one flipping the bill, should decide what is to be paid for?
If not the consumer, it's the State which is to determine FOR US, by way of studies, what we should/should not be taking.
Of course, we all know, scientific studies are infallible of being slanted to favor a specific outcome.
However, as we've just seen, in an effort to mandate that everyone be “cut from the same cloth”, we end up with people paying for procedures they will NEVER use in their lifetime. I, for one, don’t find that fair.
If the answer to that is "dem's the breaks," well, I'll argue we are no better than any totalitarian regime.
Even Mussolini said any disagreement from the all powerful political elite’s decision was against the state.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
I assume that I would be a deviant since my decision to use my income as I see fit as "against the state."
Who do you feel has the most vested interest in health care decisions?
The individual or the Gov't ?
\The problem here arises in that only ONE decision can be made. When you allow the Gov't to have a "hand in the decisions" the individuals whose decision deviates from this is pushed to the way side.
This is the fallacy of Govt's proper maintenance and "improvement" in a system. It's a one size fits all approach, and not everyone fits into this category.
Rather I would advocate a more market-orientated approach that allowed people to buy the insurance they want, with the company they choose.
This would weed out the bad companies and leave only the ones that served the people the best insurance at the price they wanted. Simply the power of competition, which works in every other industry.
But we've drifted off the topic (mainly my fault).
Do you disagree with the main thesis of the video that; the cost of insurance rises from each marginal expenditure the company legally must provide?
There by transferring these mandated expenses to the consumer, as a whole?
Sorry, you are correct. I did write that sentence incorrectly.
The essence of what I was saying is this;
Specifically speaking of health insurance costs and their long-term benefits, I feel the person whose life is at stake has the MOST vested interests into how it's carried out (co-pays, benefits, choice of Dr., etc).
Also, that if we continue to advocate a system where the person with the most vested interests DOESN'T have the final say over their own body, than who? In this case, it's the political officials.
We perpetuate a system where, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, Barbara A. Mikulski, Johnny Isakson (etc, etc) somehow know what you need, better than you and your doctor.
I, for one, will never agree with that.
To your last point, I will continue to vote for officials that favor choices that give more rights to people and less to the officials themselves. Because I reject the "Love 'em or leave 'em" premise. There is a third option, change 'em.
Still, thanks for discussing this with me Seb. It’s too bad we couldn’t get more input from others. C'est la vie – See you on the next blog!