PDF The current debate is really about entitlements.
Which is the odd one?
Not whether but who.
The insurance companies argue that they are entitled to do business as they always have done.
Of course, they would be more than willing to accept money from the government to do more of what they have always done, as long as their profits are secured.
The insurance companies also argue that they perform an important service and that millions of jobs hang in the balance and we dare not disrupt this vital economic engine. Somehow that argument did not seem to work for the auto industry or the steel industry.
Why? Because in the current system, the insurance companies know that their customers, patients and subscribers, feel entitled to their health care benefits.
One sense of entitlement drives another. Those with good health insurance feel entitled to what they have and feel threatened that any encroachment would dilute their own entitlement. Many rail against those who they perceive as threats to their own entitlement.
“Why should ‘someone else’ (i.e. me) pay for the health care of the uninsured?”
Isn’t that the whole point of any insurance? We all pay a little, so that no one has to pay a lot. When we do have the misfortune to need the health care system, “someone else” is usually paying for it.
Or, “Where does it say in the Constitution that people have a right to health insurance?” Where does it say in the constitution that people have a right, for example, to farm subsidies, but those special interests sure fight hard to preserve them.
Insurance companies and their customers are not the only ones who are entitled. The for profit drug companies, pharmacy benefit managers, imaging centers, labs, some doctors and hospitals, each feels entitled to its status quo.
So why is entitlement such a bad word? Why is it only used to describe something that those without ask from those with? Only then is the word “entitled “used.
We need to view entitlements differently
I suggest we view entitlements as – an entitlement.
We feel entitled to safe and clean drinking water, clean air, safe schools, streets, and highways. When we buy products, we expect them to work and to be safe. We think we are entitled to honest government and our experiences to the contrary don’t diminish that sense of entitlement.
If we did not have an entitled citizenry, we would not have our litigious society.
So why should health care be exempt from the things we are entitled to. Safe drinking water doesn’t just benefit me individually it benefits everyone? Yes, I might be able to find a safe and secure private source for water, but that in no way preempts the role of government in securing a safe water supply.
We expect people to earn a living. We help them in many ways. We educate them, we pay for roads to get them to work or to deliver their products to market. We have laws and unions to provide some protection in the workplace. We subsidize public transportation to further assist their travel to and from work. Why shouldn’t we guarantee that they are healthy enough to work?
In today’s world, there are people are too sick to work and too broke to get treatment. Whose sense of entitlement is this violating? Doesn’t everyone benefit when society maximizes the capabilities of its workforce?
The goofy part about this entitlement argument is that it cuts both ways. Some people argue that the working poor are not entitled to subsidized health care. Meanwhile, others argue that people earning too much money should not have tax-subsidized health care.
An entitlement is not limited to those in certain income classes.
0 Responses to “Entitlements: Not Whether, but Who”