Health Care Reform: An Analogy

I am going to use an analogy to try to show that what our President has proposed is not "socialized medicine" or the government "takeover" of health care.

Let's suppose on the eve of the anniversary of hurricane Ike which devastated the Gulf Coast that Mr. Obama went on TV and proposed that we reform homeowners and flood insurance. He might point out that thousands of people lost their homes and many cannot replace them because they did not have insurance or did not have the correct type of insurance (i.e. flood versus wind). Or maybe they were denied their claim because they failed to disclose a cracked slab even though their roof was blown off, something not the least bit related to that defect.

The president might go on to note that many with insurance before Ike could no longer get it afterward because of the prior claim. So even if they rebuilt their homes they would have to bear the burden of another storm loss without benefit of insurance. Or if insurance were available its cost would be prohibitive because the homeowner would be placed into a "high risk" pool with exorbitant premiums and limited coverage.

Therefore, to protect all homeowners against these onerous practices by the insurance industry, the President proposes some new laws covering homeowners insurance. First, no homeowner could be denied insurance, regardless of preexisting conditions (like the cracked slab). No homeowner could have his or her insurance canceled because of a claim or have their coverage capped if damages were really bad. No homeowner would be denied future coverage because of prior claims. Pricing would be fair for all. Insurance companies could not "cherry pick" homeowners, offering coverage to big, expensive houses but denying it to small ones in poor neighborhoods.

The President, being a practical man, realizes that he cannot slap all these restrictions on the insurance companies unless they are allowed to recoup the costs that will be incurred by all this "fairness". So, all homeowners will be required to purchase insurance, just like all drivers are required to purchase auto insurance. The President also realizes, again being practical, that not everyone can afford homeowners insurance so he proposes a subsidy or tax break for those of limited means to make it possible for them to buy insurance.

And, just to be sure that affordable insurance is available to the most needy he proposes a "public option" for homeowners insurance. This would be an insurance plan offered by the government but supported entirely by premiums paid by homeowners. No tax dollars would be spent to subsidize the plan. It would be able to keep premiums low because it would not need to advertise to attract customers, it would not be required to make a profit to stay in business and it would not need to pay lavish executive salaries as a reward for making these profits. Furthermore, it would have bargaining power to negotiate the best prices on materials and labor needed to rebuild homes lost to disasters like hurricanes, wild fires and earthquakes.

In summation, the President would proffer that no homeowner should be forced into bankruptcy or left homeless due to the unpredictable forces of nature. Homeowners insurance should not be seen as a privilege but a right. This is not only fair but the American Way.

So, if this little fairy tale were to come to pass, would you consider this "socialized homeowners care" or a government takeover of homeowners' homes?

I think not.