 |
 |
By Rep. Jason Murphey
What if you had a pressing need for a new car? And what if, when you went to buy a new car, the only vehicle you were allowed to purchase was a luxury vehicle with all options pre-installed? Can you imagine how many Oklahomans would be unable to afford transportation if this scenario were a reality?
One of the most pressing topics the Legislature deals with each year is health care. The issue is of added importance because Oklahoma has the fourth highest population of uninsured people. The most obvious reason for this lack of coverage is the high price of purchasing insurance in Oklahoma.
The average price of a job-based health insurance policy in Oklahoma is $4,088. The national average is $3,991. Oklahoma’s median income is significantly lower than the national average, which means that Oklahomans pay higher health insurance costs with a lower average income.
One of the reasons for high insurance fees in Oklahoma is because the Legislature has driven up the cost over the years by mandating a “one size fits all” approach to coverage. Policies become even more expensive when the Legislature approves new laws to mandate the coverage of any number of heartbreaking medical situations that have not traditionally been covered by health insurance policies Read more…
Related:
Sen Gumm: Mandate Myths From “The Daily Oklahoman” Opinion Page
7 Comments
1. Butchey Weinstein replies at 16th September 2008, 3:16 pm :
Amen! Hey Gumm, you listenin’? I know it sucks that some people can’t take vacations because they have to care for their kid, but dad-BURN, this is brilliant stuff!
2. Jay Paul Gumm replies at 18th September 2008, 3:17 pm :
Equating insurance with a vehicle is not a correct analogy. For insurance to work, risk must be shared among all. Doing so makes risk manageable for all.
To shear off the high risk – to engage in social Darwinism – begins to break down a system, creating one in which only those who who are low risk – young and health – can get insurance.
Health insurance is not a car. Wider risk pools are necessary to make costs manageable. That is how it has always worked, until insurance companies decided to look for any way possible to maximize profits at the expense of those paying the premiums.
Rep. Murphy suggests that seniors might not want to pay for coverage of illnesses that strike the young. Fair enough, but that blade cuts both ways. If young adults do not want to share the risk of seniors, imagine how the premiums for seniors will go up. Shared risk is manageable risk, and that is the premise and principle on which insurance is based.
Again, the luxury car analogy is a very poor comparison. It might work on products, but not something as sacred and life-critical as insurance.
I’ve heard this argument before, and having it repeated by an eloquent colleague does not make it any more persuasive. Rep. Murphy and I will simply have to agree to disagree – as will you and I “Butchey.”
3. Butchey Weinstein replies at 18th September 2008, 5:29 pm :
Gumby makes some really big assumptions here, folks. If we carried his assertions to their logical ends, there would be no limitations or exclusions. Chiropractic care, which is limited on most plans, would not be limited. Neither would mental health care, dental care of any type, including cosmetic, or treatment for conditions which would go away if people had a little pride in themselves as human beings; i.e. obesity treatment. People would not and could not be discriminated against for skydiving, getting hurt while committing a crime, or riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Guess who would pay triple the cost? You and me.
Gumby and his pals like to ask us, “What are you going to do with all those kids?”. Well, here’s the perfect and most direct answer: I didn’t take your kids on to raise. Any help I give should be voluntary. End of discussion, end of argument. Instead of trying to enact unconstitutional laws, why don’t you guys get busy starting a non-profit? You could keep your pride and do something that isn’t theft.
4. Jay Paul Gumm replies at 18th September 2008, 6:14 pm :
Sounds very “eugenics” and Darwinistic. Hope you someday do not endure some malady your insurance company doesn’t feel like covering – just for a few bucks. Speaking of voluntary, I’m still waiting to see the voluntary cancelled check from a donation to the Easter Seals autism school.
5. Butchey Weinstein replies at 18th September 2008, 8:44 pm :
Not eugenics or Darwinistic in the least. Merely constitutional and politically conservative. Welfare is socialism. Government control of private enterprise is socialistic if not fascistic. Next you’ll be trying to turn us into a European nation-state where a person can be cited for failure to render aid. You big government boys have failed any and every time you’ve taken government outside its constitutional bounds. As for a cancelled check, I don’t have any need to prove anything to you. I know how much I donate and to what causes. It’s between me, God, and those organizations I choose to support. If I choose to let Big Brother in on it so he’ll give me a tax break, so be it. But it’s really none of your business. I haven’t asked to see your cancelled checks.
6. Jay Paul Gumm replies at 18th September 2008, 10:59 pm :
Check your facts on me being a “big government boy.” I’ve been called a lot of things, but that isn’t one of them. I’ve written and passed more tax cuts than any Oklahoman – ever.
I just simply believe in the original premise of insurance; you do not. Under your model, insurance collapses because it is not really insurance.
You advocate an insurance theory that is not shared risk; it’s no risk. Insure the able bodied, and to blazes with anyone that isn’t.
That leaves uninsured those who might be a risk to insurance company profits. They would be dependent on government services – driving up your taxes. Absent those services, they suffer and in many cases they die. I guess then, under your model, “problem solved.”
7. Butchey Weinstein replies at 19th September 2008, 4:56 pm :
You not only don’t believe in the original model of insurance, you know precious little about it. Why not just call socialized medicine by it’s proper name? That’s what you’re advocating.
Leave a comment