politicalcivility.com Blog

As I’ve listened to both candidates and both parties debate this issue, I think that in order to make any progress in reform we have to start by using correct terms.  This issue is most apparent when referring to “insurance” or the insured.

Let’s be clear…What we call insurance today is really nothing more than a health payment plan.  It isn’t really insurance. 

Insurance is something you buy when you can’t afford to lose or suffer the loss of the thing you insure.  Car insurance for example.  I have liability insurance on my car, but not collision because the insurance costs more than the car is worth.  But this insurance pays for something I cannot afford–a major accident.  It does not provide for gas, oil-changes, safety inspections, minor repairs, alignments, new tires, etc.

The “insurance” issue clouds what we’re really trying to get to the bottom of: affordability, not the affordability of insurance, but the affordability of the routine care of our bodies.  This would leave insurance to become true insurance, by insuring us against those health issues we can’t predict (stuff like my dad’s brain tumor) nor can we afford (the heart surgery and 2-week hospital stay of my mother-in-law).

By differentiating between affordability of care and dumping the insurance idea, I think we start to get a better idea of what the government may need to do to act as a safety net.  I think we also start to better understand what affordable really looks like, affordable care that is. 

On a side note, I think it would be interesting to compare what a family spends on cars as compared to health care and what they get for their dollar.  If we can afford to take care of our cars, we should be able to afford to take care of the general needs of our bodies without insurance.

The Sutherland blogger briefing debate proved very interesting on Tuesday morning.  Next time, I’ll need to make sure that JasonThe gets a 7:25 wake-up call.

A few quick takeaways for me from the debate:

1. Never “demand” an apology from your opponent.  It looks childish and usually just gives the concern or misquote or mischaracterization more unneeded air time.  Some has already been talked about on the bloghive about Chaffetz demanding an apology from Bennion Spencer about tent city comment. Jason, your a nice fellow, but please don’t demand again.
2. Energy Independence was highlighted as the No.1 issue of this election and the 3rd district campaign.  Bennion’s comment on ANWR betrayed his limited understanding of basic economics and supply and demand.  He made it sound like he was opposed to drilling unless all the oil stayed in America, which is a big government solution.  The oil doesn’t have to stay in America for it to help oil prices in America.  In fact, mandating that the oil stay in America would most likely lead to a price increase versus decrease.
3. Both candidates agreed on several issues. For example, both highlighted the need to secure the borders and Spencer went so far as to say that we need to punish people who take advantage of them (read American businessmen). Both are strongly pro-life and anti-abortion.
4. Spencer really criticized the media, which I found interesting.  He seems to be more of a journalist purist/idealist.  My read on what he said is that the media is failing in their role as the government watchdog.

After listening to the both men, one question really remained in my mind.  Is Bennion Spencer really a Democrat? 

Spencer made the comment that the Founders were divinely inspired; he’s pro-life; he’s pro-border security.  Those sentiments and policy positions would put him in direct conflict with his own party.  He sounds more like the Republican congressmen I interacted with in Ohio.  Maybe Bennion represents a growing trend in the democratic party: socially conservative and fiscally liberal (health care was the only real difference I saw in terms of policy between Chaffetz and Spencer).  But I don’t think he’s any different philosophically than a Cheryl Allen (republican in the house) or a Lyle Hillard (republican in the senate).  So is Bennion running as a Democrat because he believes in the Democratic platform or because like a lot of other Utahns he’s tired of the majority party and just wants to be different? 

I can’t judge his intentions (frankly, I really enjoyed getting to know Bennion), but it makes me wonder.

BTW: Thanks to Rob Miller for posting clips on YouTube, which you can view on the UtahAmicus or Sutherland channels.

Here’s a link that gives a nice quick overview of what the Grace Commission found about taxation and governement spending.

http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html

This is a follow-up on the $55 dollar tow job post.

If I had any lingering thoughts that government should be involved with health care, they went right out the window today.  You might say what does a tow job and government run health care have in common.  Well let’s take a look at why what normally would be a $55 tow job on the regular free market, becomes a $200 tow job under state regulation.

I live in Lehi and last night was one of the most amazing wind storms and drifting I’ve ever seen.  Frankly to watch how powerful mother nature is was pretty awesome notwithstanding the danger it posed on the roadways.  Anyway I got stuck in a drift, like hundreds of others, on my way home and had to abandon my car or else spend a cold night in the old accord.  I choose to walk the mile or so home.  When I went with some neighbors to dig out my car early this morning, we found it had been towed.  I called Vern’s Tow Shop (which is about two miles from where I was towed), and was informed that my towing fee would be $198.  I was blown away, so I had my wife call in and get a quote for our other car from the same place.  We were told it would cost $55.  For those keeping track that is a $143 difference in cost for the same work.

How does this happen?  Well the state legislature thought it would be a good idea to “regulate” towers by setting standard baseline fees for towing companies anytime they towed an abondoned car.  Now either they didn’t care to take a look at market prices or the towing lobby worked some smoke and mirrors, because the base fee to tow a car you have to abadon in a snow storm is $121 plus a fuel surcharge, plus a milage fee, plus a housing fee, etc., etc.

Now let’s look at what this looks like in a government run health care system.  Let’s say for example, that I have a common cold and need to go to the doctor.  With the current market, it probably costs $75-100 depending on if they give you a test or not.  In the government run “price” controlled system, based just on a simple towing example, I (the taxpayers, because government run health care is NOT FREE) would be paying between $270-$360 for the same visit.  So much for “affordable” government health care!

Don’t believe me…may I recommend the book “A Taxpayer Survey of the Grace Commission.”  This book outlines how a Home Depot hammer costs the military several hundred dollars and many more examples of how when government gets involved affordable goes out the window