“I’ll Have the Least Expensive Option, Please.”

[ThisThreadIsSatire]

Editorial from www.TheDesperateBlogger.com

By now we’ve all heard the arguments for and against a ‘public option’ as part of health care reform legislation. While the ‘national conversation’ has been much more contentious than it has productive, I hope we can all agree and take solace in the fact that it has effectively brought out into the open the need for another potentially expensive but badly needed initiative — mental healthcare reform.

The most obvious example is the departure from reality necessary to not conclude, assuming as most do that any government-run operation is doomed to exist as a morass of waste, inefficiency, and overspending, that the suggestion existing private insurers couldn’t compete with one shows the extent to which they’ve been ripping us off.

Also, an example of mass lack of ability to reason logically can be seen in the irrational fear that a salaried government bureaucrat would be more likely to “pull the plug on Grandma” than a private-sector bureaucrat who gets huge incentive bonuses for keeping costs down.

But since there’s less chance of mental healthcare reform happening anytime soon than there is of getting more than two of our Supreme Court justices to stop and ask for directions, for now I’ll keep the focus on the current ‘public option’ debate.

There should be four choices as a part of any public option, which can be priced according to the same actuarial standards currently employed by the insurance industry. Plan participants would be allowed to choose whether or not the plan they participate in either pays, or does not pay, for end-of-life-counseling and abortions.

While personally pro-choice, I have no problem with someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is in support of their anti-abortion beliefs. And as almost two-thirds of the country’s private health insurers cover at least part of the cost of elective abortions, this would allow them to switch to a plan more suited to their conscience than their current plan most likely is.

Of course there’s always a price to pay, so what’s the catch? Simple –insurance companies don’t choose to pay for abortions merely because they are Godless, soul-less, spirit crushing behemoths. Granted, they generally are Godless, soul-less, spirit crushing behemoths, but the reason they pay for abortions is because it costs less than the alternative, period. (By the way, this might be a good time to ask those who are so passionately pro-life that they are deeply offended that proposed healthcare reform bills would guarantee coverage ‘from birth’ but not ‘before’ to please, just for a moment, put the Bible down (I’m not asking you to let it out of your sight – just put it down) and look up the term ‘prenatal care’.)

As far as ‘end-of life counseling’ is concerned, personally I’d be thrilled to have my insurer pay for it. Everyone should have a ‘living will’ in case they ever wind up in a situation where they are so incapacitated that they cannot make decisions for themselves. This not only eases the burden on those closest to them, but guess what Mouseketeers, it also save piles of cash. Remember comas are much more than just monotonous, they’re really freakin’ expensive. Consequently, any plan that would, at the express wishes of the patient, help avoid countless incidents of unnecessarily prolonged ones would also be less costly. That’s why the concept of these so-called ‘death panels’ or, more accurately, ‘advanced-care planning’ is supported by the insurance industry.

So, my friends, I’m all for people who are uncomfortable for any reason with end-of-life-counseling and funding of legal abortions to have a public option they’ll be comfortable with. For myself, as I often do, I’m looking at the ‘value menu’, and I’ll have one death panel and a woman’s right to choose, please.