Health Insurance or a Sugar Daddy?

Full Disclosure: I am 100% opposed to the Affordable Care Act, but that does not mean that I am opposed to major healthcare reform.

I am writing this post fully acknowledging that our health care and health insurance industries are majorly flawed and that they are in need of drastic reform.  It's tragic that quality healthcare and health insurance is by and large a luxury of the middle and upper classes and that healthcare has become so unaffordable that uninsured, working class families can't even afford to take their children to routine doctor's visits or have a broken arm treated without risking their financial stability and livelihood. It's a grave problem and the problem needs a solution.

However, I think that the solution that has been proposed is not just problematic, but wholly wrong-headed and will prove to be detrimental to our entire healthcare system in the United States. I believe that it is completely possible to point out flaws and offer critiques of a system while also sympathizing, and empathizing, with those whose lives are complicated and sometimes destroyed by the deficiencies of our current system.

On to the discussion:

My problems with the Affordable Care Act are legion, but I am not going to discuss most of them here. Suffice it to say that I think that there are several parts of this law which are setting dangerous precedents for the future. One of the more troubling precedents is the way the U.S. government has placed regulations on private industry in such a way that undermines the entire business structure of that industry.

Let me explain:

The health insurance industry is an industry whose business model works because of risk. In this business relationship between the customer and the insurance company, one side is an optimist and the other is a pessimist.

I buy health insurance when I am healthy and I am betting that one day I am going to be sick. If catastrophe or sudden illness befalls me or my family, I want to know that I will have help when it matters. The insurance company is also betting on my health, but they are assuming that I will live a long, relatively healthy life.

Why does the insurance company pay for my unexpected surgery, because they entered into an agreement with me betting that I would never get sick. 

This is the way the industry works. Both sides are risking something: I may pay premiums for years and never need the insurance coverage that I have paid for, but I may also become deathly ill immediately after I sign up for coverage and the insurance company may have to pay out far more than I'll ever pay into the system with my premiums. Risk. It's what makes the insurance world go round.

Enter the Affordable Care Act:

One of the most touted aspects of the ACA is the requirement that insurance companies accept patients with pre-existing conditions. As we just saw, this new requirement undermines the structure upon which the insurance industry is built. There is no risk at all involved in the arrangement if a patient can sign up for health insurance after they've been diagnosed with a serious illness. You're not asking for insurance at that point, you're asking for a sugar daddy to pay your bills. The only reason insurance works is because insurers bet that you won't get in a car crash, that you won't die prematurely, that you won't be diagnosed with a serious illness, and for most of us, those events don't happen. However, we happily (I'm being generous) keep paying premiums and those premiums are paying for those insured who have had the diagnosis we all fear.

There is no risk involved from the customer's vantage point if they can apply for auto insurance and pay a premium only after they have rear-ended a garbage truck. They have not paid into the system. They never accepted any risk. Instead, they are expecting the insurance company to pay out for a new car. Again, that's not insurance, that's a sugar daddy.

This problem is further compounded by the regulation that forbids insurance companies to charge patients with pre-existing conditions higher premiums than they do for individuals who are and have been healthy. Insurance companies are businesses that are out to make a profit. In order for them to take on this new financial burden, insurance premiums must go up, and they must go up substantially.

Final Thoughts:

First, this requirement in no way solves the fundamental problem of health care and health insurance: that it is too expensive for average and low income families to afford. Instead, the requirement that insurance companies accept previously uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions while not charging them higher premiums, will only drive up the cost of insurance for all.

Secondly, I believe that we have set a dangerous precedent. We have allowed the government to pass a law that fundamentally undermines the business structure of a private industry. There is no precedent for this type of action. If the government wants to argue that the health insurance industry provides a necessary service and therefore needs to fall under more stringent government regulation, that's one thing. Public utilities are subject to heavy government regulation that limits the rate of profit those companies can earn in order to control costs, but that is not what has happened here. Instead, the government has regulated the health insurance industry in such a way that it undermines its basic ability to derive a profit and provide a product at a reasonable rate.

Finally, our previous healthcare system failed many people. It failed people who were sick and laid off from their jobs, thereby losing their employer provided health insurance. It failed people who were low-income who couldn't afford to take their child to the doctor, much less afford a $500/month insurance premium. I am not functioning under the illusion that all uninsured people with pre-existing conditions chose to be uninsured. However, I am suggesting that there must be a way to provide for these individuals without potentially dismantling a private industry. I've linked to a United Liberty article below. I don't believe that it has all of the answers, but I do believe that it is an important start.

Sources and Further Reading:

Millennials are Opting Out of Obamacare Because Its Not Insurance- Forbes
Does Obamacare Reduce Costs for People With Pre-Existing Conditions?- Voices of San Diego
Replacing Obamacare: Republican Answers to Pre-Existing Conditions- United Liberty
Fixing Pre-Existing Conditions Without Obamacare- Ohio Liberty Coalition

Charles Taylor, The ICC, and Why Syria Still Matters

From 1997-2002, Sierra Leone was engaged in a brutal civil war. 50,000 people died during the 11-year conflict, but that statistic is not why Sierra Leone is remembered. 

On March 23, 1991, The Revolutionary United Front (RUF), supported by Liberian President Charles Taylor, attempted to overthrow Sierra Leone's established government. Throughout the ensuing conflict, there were widespread reports that the RUF recruited child soldiers, drugged their soldiers, and encouraged their soldiers to embark on a campaign designed to terrorize the citizens of Sierra Leone. This campaign of terror included rape, mutilation (known as "short sleeves" for amputations above the elbow or "long sleeves" for amputations above the wrist), and beheading. On April 26, 2012, Charles Taylor was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and aiding and abetting acts of terror. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Last Thursday, (September 26) Charles Taylor lost his final appeal at the International Criminal Court

Charles Taylor

(ICC). Mr. Taylor's attorneys argued that a 50 year sentence for "aiding and abetting" was extreme. They argued that legal precedent differentiates between the person(s) who actually committed the crime and the individuals who lent support to the perpetrators. His attorneys argue that Mr. Taylor was not personally responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. Instead, he aided in the crimes inadvertently. Mr. Taylor provided supplies to the RUF that included vehicles and other supplies that are generally used in an non-offensive and non-criminal way. His attorneys suggest that he should not be held accountable for how the RUF chose to utilize his support.

The ICC disagreed and their ruling has important implications for the United States' role abroad. Instead of supporting Mr. Taylor's claims that "aiding and abetting" is an inferior crime, the ICC broadened the definition that term.

According to the Associated Press it is no longer required, "that to prove a leader has aided and abetted a crime, the assistance has to be specifically directed at committing a crime." Instead, if the aid provided was used for criminal purposes and if the lending country/individual understood that the aid was at risk for abuse, that leader can be tried and convicted for war crimes.

The Implications for Syria

Obviously this had broad implications for any country involving itself in the affairs and intrigues of other nations and it quite clearly has profound implications for the United States.

There is no "rebel faction" fighting in Syria. There are multiple rebel factions, some of whom are allied with Al Qaida. Americans may no longer be facing the immediate threat of our bombing the Syrians, but we are facing the reality that our government has now begun to arm certain rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Will our resources be used appropriately? Have our national leaders considered the possibility that our well-intentioned aid could fall into the hands of rebels who desire to inflict terror upon the citizens of Syria? These are important questions, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the Fast and Furious scandal. Both the international community and the United States people are wary of U.S. involvement in foreign disputes and while the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the actions of U.S. leaders, a condemnation by an institution with the kind of prestige that the ICC carries, would do irreparable damage to our credibility abroad. Not to mention that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, if we arm soldiers who use our supplies for evil, there is a strong possibility that we are morally culpable for the crimes they perpetrate.

Sources:

U.S. Weapons Reaching Syrian Rebels
Liberia's Charles Taylor Loses Appeal Against War Crimes Conviction
Court Upholds 50 Years for Liberia's Taylor
Link to BBC World News Radio Report- 1st Story