Calls From Medicare, Ads from Medicare Companies, Obamacare, Shutdowns, ... They are all related

 

Calls From Medicare, Ads from Medicare Companies, Obamacare, Shutdowns, ... They are all related:

The Bureaucrat’s Scalpel: How Data and Central Planning Killed American Health Choice

I sold Medical and Health Insurance after I left the Army in 1993. I was the 'Valedictorian' of my class of 21, So TRUST ME ON THIS. I also spent time in medical billing and coding ... so I have seen the money go in and the money chased. [So What]. Anyway, then we had choice. Now we don't. Now it is ONE SIZE FITS ALL and we are not A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOCIETY.

The reason why you are bombarded with all those commercials is because the Medical Industrial Complex looks at DATA on an annual basis, and Doctors submit a FEE SCHEDULE and those FEES are based on GEOGRAPHY. [They teach you that in Medical Billing School. Also, this explains why the Medical industry changes annually, the DATA changes based on demographics. Medical Insurance is a BUSINESS. DATA COUNTS. 

Now you know why this is the SEASON for choosing Medicare Plans.

There is a specific, hard-won knowledge that comes not from theory, but from practice. It is the understanding of a system gained not by reading about it in a legislative brief, but by navigating its gears and levers from the inside. The voice in the provided post carries this very authority—a former military member turned insurance professional who saw the machinery of American healthcare before and after a fundamental shift. His testimony points to a truth that conservatives have long argued: we have moved from a system of individual choice and market dynamics to a top-down, one-size-fits-all model that is fundamentally at odds with the nature of a free and diverse people. The annual bombardment of Medicare commercials is not merely a marketing season; it is the symptom of a complex, data-obsessed, and geographically-manipulated medical-industrial complex that has been empowered by the state, a far cry from the simple, patient-driven choices of the past.

The post makes a critical distinction: “then we had choice. Now we don't.” This is the conservative critique in a nutshell. For decades, the guiding principle of the left’s approach to healthcare has been standardization in the name of equity. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), or ObamaCare, was the ultimate expression of this, layering a mountain of federal regulations and mandates onto the insurance market. The result was not the expanded choice we were promised, but a drastic constriction. Policies were homogenized into federally-designed “metal tiers” (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum). A dizzying array of plans that once catered to individual needs and budgets were wiped away, replaced by a limited menu of options that all had to cover the same “Essential Health Benefits,” whether a 60-year-old marathon runner needed pediatric dental coverage or not.

This is the “one-size-fits-all” society imposed by bureaucratic fiat. It operates on the arrogant assumption that a panel of experts in Washington, D.C. knows better than you and your doctor what kind of health coverage you require. It ignores the vast diversity of the American populace—the young and healthy who may prefer a catastrophic plan with a lower premium, the small business owner who wants a high-deductible plan paired with a Health Savings Account (HSA), the senior who has specific needs for their chronic condition. This forced standardization is the antithesis of freedom. It replaces the power of the consumer with the wisdom of the planner, and as the great conservative economist Thomas Sowell has tirelessly documented, the track record of central planners is one of catastrophic failure. They substitute their limited, aggregated data for the localized, tacit knowledge of millions of individuals making choices for themselves.

This leads directly to the post’s second crucial insight: “Medical Insurance is a BUSINESS. DATA COUNTS.” The conservative does not recoil from this statement; we embrace it as a reality that, when properly channeled, serves the consumer. In a truly competitive, free-market for healthcare, data would be used by insurers to compete for your business by offering better services, more efficient networks, and lower prices. Companies would vie to create the most attractive plans for different demographics, driving innovation and cost-effectiveness. The problem today is not that data is used, but that the *type* of competition has been perverted by government intervention.

As the author notes, the system now revolves around “FEE SCHEDULES” based on “GEOGRAPHY.” This is a complex way of describing a system of centralized price-fixing that distorts the entire market. Through the massive, bureaucratic leviathan of Medicare and its influence on private insurance, the government effectively sets reimbursement rates for thousands of procedures and services. These rates are not discovered through the voluntary interaction of buyers and sellers; they are dictated, negotiated, and manipulated by lobbyists, administrators, and politicians. This creates wild inefficiencies and perverse incentives. A doctor in New York City is paid a different rate for the same procedure as a doctor in rural Kansas, not necessarily because of real differences in cost, but because of political and demographic calculations.

This government-directed system is what empowers the “Medical Industrial Complex” the author references. This complex is not a natural free-market phenomenon; it is a creature of the state. Large hospital systems and insurance corporations are not competing primarily for *your* patronage; they are competing for favor, contracts, and favorable reimbursement rates from the government. They grow large and bloated not because they are efficient, but because they are adept at navigating the byzantine regulatory and payment structure that Washington has created. The annual “SEASON for choosing Medicare Plans” is a perfect example. It is not a celebration of market dynamism, but a mandatory, confusing ritual where seniors, overwhelmed by complexity, are forced to make high-stakes decisions in a system they did not design and cannot control. The billions spent on advertising during this period are a testament not to healthy competition, but to a rent-seeking economy where businesses fight over a slice of a government-defined pie.

The conservative vision for healthcare stands in stark contrast to this centralized, data-obsessed, one-size-fits-all model. It is a vision that returns power, choice, and dignity to the individual patient.

First and foremost, we believe in restoring true competition across state lines. The current system balkanizes the nation into 50 separate insurance markets, stifling competition and choice. Allowing Americans to purchase health insurance from any state would create a national marketplace, forcing insurers to compete for millions of new customers and driving down prices through innovation and efficiency.

Second, we champion the expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs are a profoundly conservative tool because they re-empower the individual. They allow people to save and spend their own money for routine medical care, making them conscious consumers of healthcare. When you are spending your own money, you have an incentive to ask about the cost of an MRI, to shop for generic drugs, and to question unnecessary procedures. This creates bottom-up pressure on prices, a far more effective mechanism than top-down price controls from a federal bureaucracy.

Third, we must reform the tort system. The constant threat of frivolous lawsuits forces doctors to practice “defensive medicine,” ordering unnecessary tests and procedures solely to insulate themselves from litigation. This drives up costs for everyone. Common-sense tort reform would reduce this massive, hidden tax on our healthcare system.

Finally, we must move toward a system of price transparency. In no other industry do consumers purchase a service without knowing the cost. The current opacity in healthcare pricing is a direct result of a third-party payer system, where the patient is insulated from the true cost of care. By mandating transparency—requiring hospitals and providers to post their prices clearly—we can reintroduce the market forces that control costs everywhere else.

The individual who shared his experience saw the shift from a system that trusted citizens to one that manages subjects. He saw the transition from a model where your unique health needs could be met with a tailored plan, to one where you are a data point in a demographic geography, slotted into a pre-approved plan designed by a distant regulator. The annual Medicare Season is not a symbol of choice, but a monument to complexity. The conservative mission is to dismantle this bureaucratic labyrinth and restore a simple, yet powerful, principle: that the American people, in consultation with their doctors, are infinitely more capable of managing their own health than a room full of central planners in Washington. The goal is not a system that works on paper for a statistical average, but one that works in practice for a free and unique individual.

#Obamacare #Medicare #Medical #Medicaid #Obama