Health-care reform elicits trepidation
There is a good deal of both optimism and wringing of hands when it comes to the subject of health-care reform. We view the reform with trepidation.
While we can agree that our current health-care system encourages wastefulness and is encompassed within a culture of litigiousness, the overhaul desired by the Obama administration is not the best way to deal with the situation.
Our government has handled its other big ideas — the bailouts and the stimulus — in a slapdash manner without apparent oversight and without a clear ability to explain how they were working and whether they were effective.
That leaves us with doubts as to whether the government is prepared to do more than stir up the health-care mix and to leave a mess of muddled ingredients.
Meanwhile, there is a great deal of concern about what a public health-care option would do to the current system already in place.
Many of us have insurance through our employers — and we like it. With a public option available, what incentive do employers have to provide insurance? Government mandate?
It is not a good idea for the government to tell businesses what they must offer employees.
Currently, insurance is offered because many people won’t seriously consider working for businesses that don’t. That is the free market at work. We fear the repercussions if the government further disturbs the natural balances formed by market competition.
Another problem is one of price. This reform looks very expensive. The Con-gressional Budget Office said it would greatly increase federal spending and add to the federal deficit.
Sure, those without insurance could now have it, but it’s not as if it’s free. The burden shifts to the government, but ultimately the government’s money comes from us. We will cover the expenses of this bold plan.
We have only covered some of our problems with the proposed health-care reform, but they are enough to illustrate that the government plan raises too many questions and adds further complication to an already convoluted mess.
We fear where this is going.
adapted from the Woobridge-Manassas News & Messenger
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
How novel. “Our” newspaper - long known for recycling old news (hence the moniker the Regress)—is reusing (aka “adapting”) Editorials from other community “newsletters”, ahem, newspapers.
How appropriate that Media General use a creative form of editorial rationing as an entree to discussing future changes in health care policy.
Not so new, or creative, is the use of FEAR. Look up ‘trepidation’, folks, in your Funk & Wagnalls.


Advertisement