My View
Copyright (c) 1994, L. Shawn Aiken
All rights reserved


[Each month, a reader/writer is offered the opportunity to give his or
 her viewpoint on a particular topic dear to them. If you'd like the
 chance to air *your* views in this forum, please contact Joe DeRouen
 via one of the many ways listed in CONTACT POINTS elsewhere in this
 issue]




The National Health Care Plan - Blessing or Curse?

by

L. Shawn Aiken

        There have been many times in the last 217 years when the
federal government has stepped in when they felt that state governments
could not handle the situation.  Noble causes have been fought.  Slavery
was abolished and the right to vote has been granted to virtually every
citizen of age.  Other problems have been addressed, such as aging and
illness, with programs such as Social Security and Medicare.  But the
benefits of these programs are at some points obscure while the
problems, such as the outrageous costs, are extremely evident.  The
entire issue of national health has been toyed with and fiddled at for
some time.  Now President Clinton, in one sweeping move, plans to fix
everything.  But what exactly is the National Healthcare Plan?  What
will it do?  And after it has done it, what will we have?  But the first
question that should be asked is why. 
        In "Health Security, The President's Report to the American People", 
President Clinton stated " . . .  more than two million Americans lose 
their health coverage every month.  Many get it back within a few weeks or 
a few months, but every day a growing number of Americans are counted 
among the more than 37 million who go without health insurance - including 
9.5 million children . . . At the root of the problem lies our health 
insurance system, which gives insurance companies the right to pick and 
choose whom to cover. Risk selection and underwriting - the practice of 
identifying the healthiest people, who pose the least risk - divide 
consumers into rigid categories used to deny coverage to sick or old 
people, or set high premium rates."  Thus, if a person gets ill, can't pay 
for it himself, and doesn't have insurance, the government eventually gets 
the bill.  This is why President Clinton says we need healthcare reform.
        President Clinton blames the insurance system, and thus the 
insurance companies involved.  But what is insurance?  Here is a 
definition of insurance from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary : 
"coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnity or 
guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril."  The 
first know insurance policies appeared in 3000 BC in Babylon.  People 
would insure sea merchant against loss of their ships.  The better 
maintained a merchant's ship was, the less he had to pay because it was 
less likely to sink.  Merchants with poor ships had to pay more.  Thus it 
has been for the last 5000 years.  Insurance companies gamble on the 
likelihood that you and your insured items are going to be okay.  They 
make sure that they know the odds because, after all, they are in it for 
the money.  It seems that the President believes that health insurance 
companies should have insure everybody, regardless of health history.  
This runs contrary to the whole business of insurance.
        The purpose of the proposed Health Security Act is "To ensure 
individual and family security through health care coverage for all 
Americans in a manner that contains the rate of growth in health care 
costs and promotes responsible health insurance practices, to promote 
choice in health care, and to ensure and protect the health care of all 
Americans."  A majority of the act outlines how citizens will be 
guaranteed health care coverage.  All of this fine tuning is for naught, 
for as Clinton said, ". . . if an insurance company tries to drop you for 
any reason, you will still be covered, because that will be illegal."  If 
this is enforced, insurance companies will fail unless propped up with 
government subsidies.  Then the health insurance companies will be little 
more than government agencies.
        The other part of the Health Security Act is "to contain the rate of 
growth in health care costs."  Why is health care so high?  It is said 
that this is because demand is so great.  But that violates what every 
student in high school economics is taught!  As demand increases, supply 
increases, and as supply increases, prices drop because of competition.  
Any movement otherwise is indicative of a monopoly.  But where is the 
monopoly?  Hospitals, drug manufacturers, and other health related 
industries are not owned by one big corporation.  The only relation they 
really have is the American Medical Association.  But the AMA doesn't have 
a monopoly on health care, or does it?  The AMA IS the monopoly.  If 
President Clinton were to trust bust the AMA, perhaps the rate of growth 
in health care costs could be contained.  But nowhere in the Health 
Security Act is there such a proposal.  It is unlikely that it even could 
be trust busted, because it operates under entirely different guidelines.
        The only thing really salvageable thing from President Clinton's 
Healthcare Plan is buried deep within the legislation.  It involves 
preventative medicine and health education.  This is the only real way the 
health care crisis can be handled.  Most of the more expensive medical, 
such as cancer, can be handled relatively more inexpensively when detected 
early.  If preventative medicine and health education were increased, 
health care would go down.  This is not to say your standard free clinics 
and a single health care course in high school, but something much 
broader.  A special class in high school on preventative medicine, with 
perhaps refresher courses later in life.  Frequent, and perhaps somewhat 
mandatory checkups at free clinics or from a person's own doctor.  And 
there are many other things that can be done if people are encouraged to 
do, such as improving diet, and so on.
        The nation is on a quest to alleviate the crippling costs of 
healthcare, led by President Clinton.  He, along with his wife, have 
rushed to create an answer for all the nation's healthcare needs.  But in 
doing so he has overlooked some facts.  Health insurance companies are no 
place to look to in solving our health care problems.  They are gamblers 
looking for profit.  Of course they provide a service to us, but enforcing 
them to do so is not feasible and will force them out of business and 
cripple the economy as the government has to take up the slack. It is up 
to us, with the government helping, to educate our citizens to maintain 
healthy lifestyles and engage in preventative medicine.  The less people 
that are sick, the smaller the nation's medical bill will be.  Then the 
insurance companies will be more obliged to carry everyone possible.  And 
perhaps being healthy will send a message to the medical monopoly that we 
CAN live without them, so perhaps they should wise up and use medicine as 
a tool, rather than a profit making device.  We have the knowledge to be 
healthy.  We should use it.

