Health Insurance is possible on Federal level

What if I told you nearly 20 years after its inception, a federally run insurance program boasts a 92 percent participation rate.

Think about that number: 92 percent of all eligible participants spend their private dollars, willingly, on a federal insurance program.

Obviously, I’m not talking about federal health insurance. Its only been around, sort of, for a couple years, and if 92 percent of the population participated in it, the world must be coming to an end as we know it, or at least that’s what we are led to believe.

There’s no way the federal government, in all its glory and buffoonery, could ever be able to run an efficient and effective insurance program.

The mere suggestion of such a program is clear evidence of socialism running amok in the “island surrounded by reality” known as Washington D.C.

Except, don’t tell farmers that, because 92 percent of them willingly and happily buy into the federal crop insurance program.

And with the recent storms and ongoing flooding issues, thank goodness they do, or southwest Iowa could be facing a crippling economic loss this fall.

Farmers aren’t dumb, at least, successful ones aren’t. They know a good deal when they see one, and federal crop insurance, loaded with tax incentives, are a good buy. They help farmers reduce risk and guarantee they can maintain a livelihood regardless of what mother nature throws their way.

So after listening to Sen. Charles Grassley tout the federal crop insurance program and its success, I asked him privately last week why he so adamantly opposes federal health insurance.

If one is good, couldn’t the other be as well?

I’m not sure he was really prepared for the question, or had even considered such a simple premises, as his answer didn’t seem as prepared as most.

He pointed out before the federal crop insurance program was initiated years ago, there was no such comprehensive coverage available.

If a major disaster hit, Congress could or could not choose to help affected farmers.

That’s not the case with health insurance. Sen. Grassley pointed out the private sector has for decades provided private health insurance, and that Congress never had a history of bailing out a bankrupted individual who had been struck down with a catastrophic event such as cancer.

So in other words, a federal health insurance program isn’t a priority because it exists in the private sector.

I read that as a philosophy rooted in protecting the interests of insurance providers more than the consumer. If federal health insurance somehow threatens private insurance, I would ask why.

If given a choice, would consumers be more likely to choose a federal insurance plan over a private one? Perhaps they would if the federal one was cheaper or provided better service.

But competition in business isn’t a bad thing, unless you happen to control a lionshare of the already existing business.

Certainly, consumers win with additional choices, as the providers will make more of an attempt to be competitive not only with premiums but service as well.

And to imply federal health insurance would destroy the private market is absurd. Despite a 92 percent participation in federal crop insurance, nearly every insurance agency in town still sells crop and hail insurance.

Maybe I’m just being extremely naïve and idealistic. But when I hear a figure like 92 percent willingly participating in a federal insurance program, I have a difficult time believing the federal government couldn’t successfully operate a second line.

Gregory Orear is the general manager/editor of the Red Oak Express and can be reached at publisher@redoakexpress.com.