Health care reform is much easier than Obamacare

There is so much empty talk about health care reform and how difficult it is: but that is Bunk! As with any reform the process is simple:

     1. Define the goal
     2. Identify obstructions to achieving the goal
     3. Identify how to eliminate the obstructions
     4. Eliminate the obstructions.
     5. Adjust and Repeat the process until satisfied.

The real problems occur when the goal is not related to the process being reformed.

With Obamacare, the objective has never been to actually reform health care; the objective has been only to reform the health care process to put the federal government in complete control. Proponents argue otherwise, but the abominations that came out of the House and Senate unmistakably reflect that purpose:

How many pages are dedicated to specifics to improve the quality and accessibility of health care; and how many pages are dedicated to defining government controls?

As Forrest Gump so aptly noted: “Stupid is as stupid does”.

This is such a simple process if we simply focus on de-bottlenecking health care insurance and delivery. We have the Tale of Two States (with apologies to Dickens) demonstrating alternatives at each end of the choice spectrum.

Indiana offers their employees an option that includes High Deductable Health Plans to take care of catastrophic health care needs; and Health Savings Accounts to take care of routine medical expenses with unused funds accruing in the individual employees’ account to offset future costs. 70% of their government employees now choose this option and the savings to the state and to the employees are already in the millions of dollars per year; and participant satisfaction with the health care results are impressive. This is a solution that puts the patient in charge and uses free market solutions.

Massachusetts offers a plan that reflects the essence of Obamacare: mandatory insurance, government control. It now requires federal subsidies approaching $1.5 Billion; medical insurance costs are now the highest in America and continue increasing at 10% a year since the plan was initiated, and most alarmingly, new business starts in the State have dropped 16% since the program began as potential new businesses choose nearby states for their businesses instead.

Given these two examples, which appears to approach the goal of improved health care? Is it understandable why someone would choose the Indiana option over the Massachusetts option? Break their hearts, Estelle: just say No to Obamacare.