Insurance Health…not health insurance

Everyone is concentrating on Healthcare, non-Affordable Healthcare at that. Maybe we should first look closer at the health of insurance rather than healthcare insurance? To that end at least one person has dared to go there in this column.

The Only Obamacare Fix Is For Obama To Legalize Real Health Insurance

Paul Hsieh — Op/Ed | Forbes
11/17/2013 [a few excerpts]

The President has proposed a one-year “fix” to deal with the political fallout from his broken promise (or lie), “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.” Now it’s, “If you like your plan, you can keep it until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Maybe.” But the problems with ObamaCare go much deeper than cancelled insurance. As surprising as it sounds, most Americans never had real health insurance to begin with — and were not allowed to by law. And the only cure for our current health insurance mess is to legalize real health insurance.

What most people consider health “insurance” is actually genuine insurance combined with inefficient pre-paid medical care. Contrast that with standard car or homeowners insurance policies. Those plans protect us against unlikely but expensive events, such as a bad car accident or a house fire. But we don’t use car insurance to cover routine predictable expenses such as oil changes.

…/

Suppose someone today wished to buy an insurance plan that covered only serious illnesses and accidents (and otherwise pay for routine health expenses with his Health Savings Account.) For many people, that would be an excellent combination. Yet he would not allowed to by law. Because of legal mandates, insurers may not sell such plans, and individuals may not purchase them.

ObamaCare did not create these problems, but does double down on them. Hence, to fix those problems, we’ll not only need to repeal ObamaCare but also prior bad laws.

…/

In addition to specific policy proposals, we need a broader national conversation on the proper functions (and limits) of government. Hence, I was encouraged by this recent Chicago Tribune editorial editorial that observed:

Accept that government doesn’t know what’s best for everyone. That people can decide what coverage they need and can afford. A strong marketplace offers choices for every wallet. Obamacare’s rules curtail those choices.

Such discussion is a good step in the right direction. Instead of debating which new government entitlements to create, we should be vigorously debating which freedoms to restore.

The president’s proposed “fix” won’t work. The only lasting “fix” is freedom. Legalizing real health insurance would be a damned good place to start.

See entire column:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/11/17/the-only-obamacare-fix-is-for-obama-to-legalize-real-health-insurance/

What a novel concept, putting the health in insurance.

Same old socialism… different year

  

Sandy or Frankenstorm…. maybe a big storm but probably pales next to the one brewing in DC for Obama’s 2nd Occupation.

This election harckens back to Goldwater’s root ideas. The same mentality is in place with the left only on an even larger scale. Here was an article I had that was posted on Pepperhawk farm’s blog. It really is worth remembering how the left sees everything.

And it is interesting now, after the election, how the left defines what Obama’s reelection apparently means. He may have won but he doesn’t get to redefine and interpretate what it means to us. He outslicked a lot of people but behind it all they are still the same old stale Marxist ideas.

You know, the ones he really wouldn’t talk about. Instead he used words like “an economy built to last;  fair shot;  level playing field;  you didn’t build that; spread the wealth around.”
 
See article from earlier this year for some background

http://pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/who-is-right-tea-parties-or-occupiers-by-privatebullright-contributor/

The road to serfdom is paved with Obama’s golden tongue, built on old ideas that enslaved people for years — not on good intentions. And no, Obama “didn’t build that” either. He didn’t build anything; he’s just marketing old ideas. He’s perfecting that, as they project the “old ideas” mantra onto their opponents.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
While they will be talking about his win and what it means, what is lost is the truth.

I saw a new book. A Catholic who was involved with the left decades ago, and came through research in economics to see ties between theology and free markets, in the affects on people.

Defending the free market: the moral case for a free economy

by (Fr) Rev. Robert Sirico

From the book preview: (Laissez Faire Club)

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Democrats in Congress and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to President Obama and his allies, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society.
(link to find book )

Rarely are you ever going to hear anything positive about the economy or markets from the left. They do make the argument for control for those reasons. This makes the “moral” case for the free market.

But I noticed, as Goldwater showed decades ago, that it is curious how the left despises economics yet bases so much of its politics on economics. (class warfare et al) And seems to seethe with resentment toward economics through their politics.

I almost want to label it all “political economics” (politiconomics) after hearing what Goldwater and others have to say about it, and on my own observations. I don’t know the accuracy of that term but it works for me. They despise it as a threat when it holds so many of the answers to the problems they claim to be concerned about. Though in reality their objective is control. The problem is not economics or the markets, but their need to control it.If Sirico makes the moral case for free markets, then what is liberals’ case for control?

I think we certainly need to hear the “moral case” for anything right now.

It is the same old socialism just dressed a little different, with a different spokesman. The same socialism ideas that brought us Reagan and his “A Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, or A Time for Choosing. He carried the torch. Reagan talked about the Shining City, but these days the beacon is growing dimmer not brighter. (and its not for lack of green energy)