I received the following email note from a local government official in rural Arizona:

Mr. Jenney, is keeping the American Health Care System under the control of the greedy billionaires a better option? Their crooked bureaucrats, political appointees and lapdogs? The kinds of people the Tea Pariers rail against are everywhere. Even among the "Taxpayers" and Tea Partiers. They're all the same ... in it for themselves.

Here was my response:

Under HR 3200, the federal government would create a cartel of big insurance companies that would be the only ones with enough cash and capital to survive the heavy mandates required to be in the Exchange (and soon, due to the provisions in Sections 102, 122, and 412, nearly everyone in the country will be in an Exchange plan). And how about this for corporate welfare: the national government is going to force every American to buy one of the plans “offered” in the cartel. If you’re concerned about “greedy billionaires,” killing competition with a government-run oligopoly is a great recipe for creating a lot of new “greedy billionaires.”

(Now, I’m not sure how long the national government will actually allow the cartel to exist. The big insurance executives seem to be betting that the government will let them survive long enough that they can retire and cash out on their options. The national government can continue to provide taxpayer subsidies to the public option or to the government-created co-ops, which means that they can always offer more lavish benefits and lower premiums than the “private” plans in the Exchange’s cartel.)

That said, I definitely believe that America needs health insurance reform, and have believed it ever since 1993, when I got involved with the Patient Power movement. But I support health insurance reform, not government rationing. I believe in moving towards universal private insurance, but on a voluntary basis. America needs to use competition and market forces to make health insurance more affordable and more portable, and to reduce the government-created inflation in the prices for health services.

Here are some key reforms:

A) Encourage people to get away from third-party insurance coverage.
B) Allow for the development of an interstate private health insurance marketplace.
C) Enact tort reform.
D) Allow doctors and hospitals to write off charity health care.

Details on the above reform proposals are available at the AFP Arizona blog site:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/081909-we-want-market-based-health-care-reforms

Also, I suggest reading the bill (HR3200) and debating the specific policy options, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks. You can name “greedy” billionaires on my side of the debate, but I can name “greedy” billionaires on your side of the debate. Warren Buffet comes to mind. So does George Soros (who has made much of his bundle by manipulating foreign governments and using inside information to make big plays on their currencies—something that actually does seem to qualify for the “greedy” label). And then there are the “greedy” multi-hundred millionaires, such as John Edwards and Ted Kennedy. I could go on and on, but that’s silly.

I believe that Buffet, Soros, Edwards, et al, actually think that more government will somehow make America’s health insurance system better. I also believe that they are wrong.

Our health insurance system is already very, very, very heavy on government subsidies. Half of the insured in this country get their insurance through government subsidies (Medicare and Medicaid), and about 40 percent of them get their insurance through employers (a system that is propped up by tax deductions for providing health benefits, and by anti-competitive features of ERISA). Further price inflation comes from state mandates on private plans.

The result of heavily subsidized demand for third-party payer insurance and mandates, as everyone learns (or should learn) in Economics 101, is skyrocketing prices. As a result of skyrocketing prices in the health sector, many of those who are stuck outside the third-party payer system often find insurance very expensive. (Actually, I have a very economical HSA plan—but Section 122c3 of HR 3200 would prohibit the high deductibles that make HSAs so affordable. So much for that...) Vigorous private-sector competition can bring down the prices of insurance coverage, but that requires government to get out of the way.

The government “solution” offered by HR3200 is to increase subsidies in the short run (which will increase prices, again), and then—at some point in the future when it becomes more politically palatable—to begin rationing health care services. That works out okay—if you don’t get sick. If you’re in a system of government-rationed health care and you need high-end health services, you often have to go to another country. Hence, the tens of thousands of Canadians and Europeans who come here every year for procedures not available in their countries. I’m very concerned about where Americans will go if the US government pulls the plug on private-sector competition and technological innovation in health care. Singapore is emerging as an R&D center, and India and China may move up, too. But they need to move up much more rapidly, if they’re going to replace the US as the world’s main driver of innovations in medical technology and practice.

Again, please read the details I’ve posted on market-based reform alternatives:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/081909-we-want-market-based-health-care-reforms

--Tom