Instead Of Asking What The Governnment Can Do On Health Care, Why Not Ask What It Should Stop Doing?

I thought the weekly Republican message on health care this week, delivered by Senator Kyl, was interesting. Here’s the video:

“Republicans have put forward common-sense ideas, including rooting out Medicare and Medicaid fraud, reforming medical liability laws to discourage frivolous lawsuits, strengthening wellness and prevention programs that encourage healthy living, and allowing small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance like large corporations do.
“These changes do not require government takeover of the healthcare system, or massive new spending, job-killing taxes, or rationing of care.

While the Democrat-proposed government take over of health care in America is bad policy, I’m not even sure the Republicans have it entirely right on health care. Wellness programs? While most Americans could certainly be leading healthier lives, I don’t think that government attempts to encourage or manipulate them into healthier lifestyles is appropriate from a limited government perspective. Nor do I think it would even work if we tried it.
I think we need to think about the health care issue entirely differently. Instead of asking ourselves what government can do to solve the problem, which everyone in Washington DC seems to be asking, maybe we should ask what the government could stop doing to make health care so expensive.
Maybe, for instance, the government should stop forcing people to pay for coverage they don’t need? Here in North Dakota a newly-formed government tobacco prohibition board is going to be pushing for a law requiring employers to cover tobacco cessation treatment under their insurance policies. Now, I’m not a smoker or a tobacco user. I don’t like smoking. I’m never going to smoke. But if these people get their way my premium will go up to pay for coverage for something I don’t actually need.
And this is a big, national problem. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance many states mandate coverage for things like alcoholism, lay midwives and chiropractors. Now, I’m not necessarily against any of those things, but if you don’t have a problem with alcoholism and if you don’t ever plan on using a lay midwife or a chiropractor why should you have to pay for coverage for them? Other than because the government simply decided that it should be so?
Here’s a thought: Maybe instead of the government – be it state or federal – forcing people into generic, one-size-fits-all health insurance plans why not let people select what they want to be covered for and pay just for that coverage? If someone doesn’t want to pay for coverage for mental health services or addiction counseling or hair prosthesis (yes, some states require that you pay for coverage for wigs) they shouldn’t have to. They should be able to decline that coverage and pocket the savings.
What’s more, the health insurance relationship should be between the individual and the insurer. If employers want to contribute to a given employee’s health care coverage that’s fine, but the employee should be the one getting the coverage. And they should be able to take their coverage with them from job to job, and from state to state.
This would go a long way toward solving the problems we have with health care in this country. Allowing people more choice, instead of less of it, empowers them to tackle this problem in ways that are best for them. Which is much preferable than the government taking away choice exchange for universal access to a mediocre and expensive (in terms of tax dollars) government health care system.