A Central Problem in our Healthcare Debate

Sometimes I feel like all sides in the healthcare debate are talking past each other. Take this recent piece in The Hill. This was penned by a business lobbying group, The Job Creators Network. Leaving aside the absolute arrogance of calling oneself a "job creator" (I'm a lawyer, does that make me a "rights creator?"), this piece exemplifies the problem with our discourse. A few excerpts:

The high cost of insurance is a massive problem for small business that cuts across industries. 

If the high cost of health insurance is "a massive problem" for businesses (who actually reap the profits of the enterprise), what kind of a problem is the high cost of health insurance for the employees of that business? Why is it that the value of our healthcare dollars is rarely discussed, only the quantum of dollars spent? To put a fine point on it, I can decrease my beer spending on race day to $0 by simply not drinking any beer. Likewise, I could reduce my healthcare expenses to $0 by simply not going to the doctor, ever. Merely reducing total expenditures simply focuses on half of the equation and utterly ignores the fact that healthcare is something that every person will need at some time in his/her life.

The article references "increased choices" as follows:

These plans have the potential to lower health-care costs and increase choices for small businesses and their employees, who have been among hardest hit by rising health-care costs.

Sure, lower health-care costs are good. However, when self-titled "job creators" start talking about ways to "increase choices," I can't help but wonder whose choices they want to increase? Surely, I would prefer increased choices as to how much the staff at my law firm gets paid . . . why not have the choice to pay them nothing and keep the money myself? The point is that "increased choices" sounds good in theory, but if the actual choice involves choosing between coverage for a heart attack or coverage for colon cancer, because you can't afford both, is that really a choice? Is that the definition of freedom? As I asked months ago on this blog, if one of my children has a curable ailment and does not get treatment because that treatment is unaffordable, is that a tragedy or the glory of the free market in action? I don't think I've hidden my views on that question.