After some sentences there should never, ever be a “but.” Far too often, however, the word appears, and what follows it is inevitably a justification of horrible things.
The worst example of this in 2024 came only recently, when liberals online and even some Democratic elected officials said they were “opposed to political violence, but … ” when it comes to the assassination of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson by someone who appears to be a progressive anti-capitalist upset about health insurance.
It’s terrible, in particular because it gives the alleged killer precisely the discussion he appears to have wanted, and on terms he would have chosen.
It’s very popular to “hate health insurance” because it’s an easy target. It costs a lot of money and insurers do at times refuse to cover things they should cover.
That last bit is where the hate really comes from. People live in a world where they think insurance companies deny coverage to almost everyone. Not to them, of course — a vast majority of Americans actually like their insurance. It’s just everyone else’s insurance that is horrible.
It’s kind of like Congress in that people view the institution as corrupt, even though they like and usually reelect their own member. The difference is that they probably don’t pay close attention to what their member of Congress does in any given year, but they are acutely aware of their health insurance and how it functions — or doesn’t.
Since so many Democrats have taken advantage of Thompson’s murder to have a conversation about health insurance — which will ultimately lead toward a government take-over of the whole thing — I figured it’s worth weighing in. I used to be a health policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation a lifetime ago, so I do have some insights on the issue. I am also old enough to remember the debate over ObamaCare, which Democrats promised would improve the whole situation.
Obviously, that was a lie. We are just 14 years on, and many of the same Democrats today list the same grievances with the ObamaCare-era health care industry that they used to push ObamaCare in the first place.
That’s because government was never the solution to what ails our health care system. If anything, it was the architect of the problem.
Democrats used to complain about HMOs as being the root of the problem in health care, even though they created HMOs. Now they do the same with ObamaCare, without acknowledging its parentage.
For them, this is all a game to inch toward a total government takeover of health care.
But before we embrace socialism, let’s take a minute to look at the problem.
First, everything insurance companies do is heavily regulated by government, both state and (thanks to ObamaCare) federal. If you hate the insurers, you are hating them for operating well within the laws that some of these angry elected officials voted for.
Second, insurance companies cannot prevent procedures from being performed, only from being covered. Patients can get any lawful procedure and either pay for it or fight for the insurance company to pay for it. As impractical and undesirable as that is, it is not “killing” people. Insurance covers what it covers; if you want it to cover more, you have to pay for something more comprehensive.
Third, doctors and hospitals are free to provide their services pro bono. If an insurance plan does not cover what a doctor thinks a patient needs, the doctor can give it to them. Hospitals perform tens of billions of dollars of uncompensated health care every year, much of it to illegal immigrants. What’s a little more?
I understand that that sounds cynical, but I’m partly serious. Rather than uproot the entire health care system — a system seemingly designed by government to fail so as to justify more government interference — how about a solution that addresses those affected by specific problems and leaves everyone else the hell alone? This is not how ObamaCare worked, but unlike ObamaCare, that approach might actually improve the situation.
Until insurance can be uncoupled from employment, and until we get price-transparency so we can be educated consumers, how about we offer physicians tax credits for providing life-saving or dramatically life-improving care to those whose insurance refuses cover it? This would not be for elective care, but for vital procedures.
Imagine a world where doctors could, on a sliding scale conceived of by people much smarter than I am, eliminate their tax liability by providing services to those who otherwise wouldn’t get them covered and couldn’t afford them. No expansion of government power, no increase in premiums for everyone, and people get the timely care they need.
Such a proposal would require more than 800 words to describe. It would also likely have to involve some kind of limit on malpractice lawsuits for such procedures. But it is doable. It involves government, but it isn’t an “expansion of government” solution. And no one has to justify a murder to do it.
Derek Hunter is host of the Derek Hunter Podcast and a former staffer for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).
