Health Care and Insurance Reform: You're Doing it Wrong

I Reject the Premise
We keep hearing that health care is in crisis. Really? The numbers keep changing. First there were 47 million uninsured. Then there were 30 million. Some analysis of the census numbers say 12 million. Numbers can be created to support anything. With enough creative math a crisis can be manufactured. There are currently 32,198,314 people worldwide infected with HIV/AIDS. By the Obama administration's definition, that's a health care crisis. I don't see any rush by Congress to address this problem though.

This rush to fix the "crisis" is the other thing that puts me in caution mode about the current health care debate. The old adage, "Haste makes waste," keeps running around my brain. Congress's swift action to solve the financial crisis left major gaps in that bailout plan. Public money was used to pay million-dollar bonuses to the very people who brought giant banks like AIG to their knees. Any time Congress is in session, I worry. When they start rushing bills through the process, I get down-right scared.

I get the feeling that it isn't political ideology, angry citizens at town hall meetings, or even the details of the bills that is slowing Congress down. I think the only thing holding Congress back now is that they are waiting on the last lobbyist to place their bid on the Congressional health care reform auction block. Once all the kick-backs and loopholes are account for, we'll be off to the races. Details like coverage of illegal immigrants isn't the hold up. Making sure there are exceptions that create autonomous health care zones for specific congressional districts is what hides behind the rhetoric.

A Simple Alternative
I've been told not to complain without offering an alternative so here's mine. It's very, very simple. Instead of using the tax code to punish people without insurance as the current bills do, give people tax breaks for buying health insurance. The following numbers are just examples and would need to be adjusted for household size, but here's the basic idea.
* If your total annual income is less than, oh say, $20,000, it is tax exempt.
* Furthermore, these poor and working poor, get 100% of any health insurance premiums back as a tax refund.
* If your total annual income is less than $50,000 and your employer doesn't provide health insurance, you get part or all of your premiums back as a tax refund.
* Small businesses receive a tax incentive of some sort which encourages them to provide policies for their employees.

That's it. That's all I've got. But it does accomplish a few things.
* Addresses the problem without creating a huge government bureaucracy and mounds of regulations.
* Addresses the problem without taking away anyone's freedom or coercing them into a system they may not need.
* Incentivizes people to get coverage instead of penalizes them for not having it.
* It's something both parties could agree on, if the point of this debate is to ensure that America is insured.
* It worked great for the auto industry as Cash for Clunkers. Why shouldn't it work for the heath care industry?
* Unlike DOT's management of Cash for Clunkers where there are still millions of promised dollars yet to be paid, the IRS has a proven track record for issuing refunds in a timely manner.

Does my suggestion solve the "crisis?" No, not as the "crisis" is defined, but it does get us closer. It does it without nationalizing nearly one-fifth of our economy. It does it without bureaucracy, red tape, and the deficit that would come with the current plans. It fulfills the promise of covering those among us least able to afford health insurance. It does it so that our freedoms are not seemingly infringed. It does it in a way which would have bi-partisan support unless, of course, the true goal here is to gain more control over the citizenry and secure a mass of money & power for those in Washington who wish to remain in power. If that's the true goal, nothing will stop the health care reform juggernaut from plowing ahead as is.