Thursday, July 15, 2010

Someone explain this to me

From the New York Times:
The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.
The White House issued new rules? When did the president gain the power to legislate? And how is this not a slow but steady government take-over of health care? The whole argument for this legislation (which mysteriously has come from the executive branch, according to the NY Times) appears to be, "We're the government, we have the experts on our side, so do what we tell you." As illustrated in the Times article:
In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.


The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of scientific experts. The rules apply to new health plans that begin coverage after Sept. 23 and to existing health plans that make significant changes after that date.
At least the experts who are so benevolently dictating what happens in our economy are willing to admit that you can't get something for nothing.
The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.
There is, after all, no free lunch.

I am troubled by the fact that people are willing to grant the President more and more power over the private sector all for the sake of "fairness" and this "fundamental right" to health care. Motivated by a sense of resentment toward businesses we like to demonize, we willingly create a monster in the White House, who promises to ensure that everyone gets what they need. That is not the system of economics that has led to American prosperity. We did not achieve prosperity by handing such authority over to a single team of "experts," and we will not sustain prosperity that way. In the long run, we will all be worse off--even the poor, who supposedly benefit from such paternalism.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love to hear feedback!