A Route to Sensible Health Care?
Earl Grinols’ latest comments provide one of the simpler and succinct explanations of the health care debate, ultimately arguing against a “public option”.
When it comes to health care, Grinols posits that Congress continues to demonstrate a misunderstanding of even the most basic features of the subject, health insurance versus health status insurance.
Additionally, the language used in the HR3200 is such that few citizens could read them or derive a meaningful summary. The establishment of qualified Health Benefits Plans, Health Insurance Exchanges, Public Health Insurance Options, Health Benefits Advisory Committees, Centers for Quality Improvements, Affordability Credits, clinical perspective advisory panels and reporting rules makes for difficult comprehension.
Further, the introduction of the interventionist language of “Secretary”, “Commissioner”, “report”, “establish”, “determine”, and “submit” fuels the perception that significant federal intrusion is intended by the bill’s authors.
Grinols concludes that the only known reliable self-enforcing mechanism to keep costs low is robust competition. And in Congress’s case, their plans for health insurance and medicine move costs in the wrong direction by raising overhead costs and the costs of practicing medicine.
