Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Healthcare reform

Brad Carmack 06 October at 14:18
Good question. I'm researching the current Washington health care reform proposal for my ethics class ( - check out the executive summary and table of contents to get the gist of the paper) and so far I'm struggling to pick a side. I'm persuaded by many arguments forwarded by the Baucus plan, and the remedies to articulated problems seem plausible and promising. However, I struggle to discern whether the long-run benefits of the Baucus plan, if applied, will outweigh their significant costs and establish a system that's better than the status quo. I'm a bit suspicious of expanding a federal administration over health care since generally public sector spending is less efficient than private sector, and some of the remedies in the Baucus plan seem very similar to Medicaid, which I think has been a significant contributor to the national debt without providing as much worth as the cost for those who pay the cost. Hmm- still thinking, thanks for the question.


  1. Ya it is a crazy question. I think the issue to National health care raises a lot of questions. Everybody wants a change and wants its improvement but under what cost. And it is the right of the Federal Government to even propose this according to the 10th Ammendment?

  2. Brad, great post. Such a tough issue. I think you may have answered your own question in your second paragraph, and it's the same conclusion I've come to regarding the situation. I think there is positive reform that can be accomplished in order to reduce costs (tort reform is where I think the energy should be focused), but healthcare is NOT a right. A government takeover of the healthcare system (which is the end-goal of the left...don't doubt that) will cause enormous inefficiencies in the market that will be devestating to the economy, not only in their costs, but also in the difficulty to reverse (see social security). Once insurance is provided for "free" by the government (i.e. you and me), good luck ever taking that away.

  3. Brad, thanks for the good info. I haven't come to a clear conclusion on this topic still, but I do have a question/side note that Jeremy once brought to my attention: If the government is paying for the healthcare, would they not also be entitled to some control over their investment and have the right put stipulations on lifestyle? For example, it is common knowledge that smokers have a highly elevated risk for lung cancer, and the habit increases their chances for a slew of other diseases. My guess is that the price of health care for smokers is going to be much higher than for nonsmokers. Thus, might not it be fair for the one paying(the gov)to say “I’m not going to pay for x,y,z for those who choose to smoke because they are a greater risk and increase my bills.”?


Search This Blog