Since the passage of the health care law on Sunday, a lot of us have challenged its constitutionality. Even before it was passed we suggested that it would violate the constitution. But since it’s passage I have seen a lot of friends and family who support the law say they don’t understand why we think it is unconstitutional. They often cite the “general welfare clause” of the constitution and laws that require automobile insurance to justify the law under the constitution.
Up front let me say, as I have before, that the current health care system is the pits, unsustainable, and that insurance companies are corrupt. That insurance coverage is intertwined with your specific employer, that it is so much more expensive for individuals, that people are denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, and that we pay for routine care through insurance claims (which is like paying for gas for your car through auto insurance claims), are all terrible, illogical aspects of what we currently have. It needs to be overhauled.
I have a significant number of friends who are in favor of a national government run health care insurance program. They have touted its benefits. Here are some questions I would like them to answer for me. If you think they are leading questions with false or unfair premises, say so, but please try to answer them.
You think that state run insurance is a good idea. You’ve seen in work well a fistful of countries. You want to see it happen in the U.S.. Please consider and provide answers to the following questions:
1. The countries that you cite (France, Germany, Australia, Canada) as examples of successful state run health insurance have at most a population 1/4 the size of the United States. What makes you think that their systems can scale to the population of the U.S.? Might there be cultural or governmental structure differences between the U.S. and these countries that would prevent their systems from translating correctly to a U.S. system? Why or why not?
