The Obama administration’s finger-to-the-wind political strategizing over birth control has touched off a furor amongst a variety of factions. Most of the controversy has rightly centered around the government’s ability to run roughshod over an individual’s, or religion’s, belief systems.
Image via Wikipedia
But an equally important issue has been revealed by accident, and is perhaps getting less attention. New York‘s junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, provides the setup, applauding the forced coverage of birth control by insurance companies:
“99 percent of American women take birth control, and this is basic health care for most women,” said Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
Until this country stops confusing health insurance with health care, we’re on a road to certain national bankruptcy. Indeed, many would argue we’re already there.
Thirty years ago, I attended a by a contemptuous Marxist professor who boldly proclaimed that the moment Americans accepted that insurance (group funding of individual consumption) was the only way to fund health care, that America would be socialized within a generation.
He also said that the best thing a young progressive could do, beside becoming a teacher, was to sell insurance.
I realized then that the only way to preserve a free society would be to create an alternative to insurance.
I was a system engineer at a state run insurance trust and managed to get access to claims data from the state. I spent late nights running claims histories through different simulations until I had a model that treated people better than insurance.
(NOTE: An HSA + High Deductible Insurance IS NOT an alternative to insurance. The health data I examined showed that the HSA + HDP model is worse for the working class and small business than standard insurance.)
Anyway, I created a mathematical model called the Medical Savings and Loan which helped people self-finance health care into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This coupled with a grants program could allow a full restoration of free market principles in health care.
The program could generate a large number of extremely interesting editorials and academic papers.
More importantly, I believe that the arguments could turn the health care debate around.
If a non-profit group began discussing a sound mathematical model that individual funding of individual consumption achieves better results than group funding of individual consumption, then people would turn on the health exchanges, single payer and other forms of socialized medicine.
Unfortunately, I live in Utah and have been unable to find any group willing to discuss real free market reform.
Instead of working on my model, I am forced to spend my days trying to find a group willing to discuss free market health care reform.
This is so silly. If a group was willing to discuss an alternative to insurance, it is likely that the group would receive a flood of interest (and money) from around the world.
Anyway, if the Civil Society Trust is interested in engaging in a discussion about alternatives to insurance, you can contact me at:
http://CommunityColor.com/contact.html?to=kevind
Thank you Kevin for your very thoughtful and intriguing comment. I’m unable to do so immediately, but will definitely reach out to you at your link.