In seeking solutions to our health insurance crisis, the most immediate action needed is to separate insurance from employment and allow the free market to organize efficient methods of pooling risk and resources. The tax system currently protects our inefficient scheme, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. Fixing the flawed tax structure would detach the ability to purchase reasonable insurance from the requirement of joining a specific form of the corporate workforce, namely employment with a large company. The free market could then find the best solution(s).
In trying to resolve this, there’s a political argument we’re married to, which hinders real progress. Special interests have a stake in keeping the status quo. Most often it’s reduced competition, but any whim of the favored is accepted almost without question if the price is paid. We have to move beyond that. But what about saving traditional health insurance?
We’ve encouraged health insurance through a specific method of provisioning for decades. Everyone has the same right to cheap healthcare, as long as they join a company large enough to take advantage of group purchasing power and expense tax deductibility. If you differ from that viewpoint, that’s too bad.
Is it too bad? Should an individual’s preferences matter? Should we adjust the way society works just to accommodate people who have different needs? That’s absurd in the push to reform health insurance accessibility in America. Anyone who respects liberty understands that different people have different requirements. One solution may not work across the entire spectrum of individuals.
So why is the same logic not absurd to the people pushing for amendments to outlaw civil marriage reform?