DEBORAH ISON FLOWERS: PART III

Healthcare

Ms. Flowers begins her discussion of where she stands on healthcare delivery and improvement with this:

“Expand Affordable and Accessible Healthcare and Deliver Good-Paying Jobs: No one should ever have to choose between seeking medical care, whether it be a dental, visual, mental health or other issue and buying groceries or paying monthly bills.”

I am struggling to understand the connection between “affordable and accessible healthcare” and “delivering good paying jobs”. Let me begin by looking at her desire for “affordable and accessible healthcare”. As I have previously written, healthcare delivery in Northern Kentucky is restricted to St. Elizabeth Health which enjoys a monopoly in House District 60, Boone County, and the Northern Kentucky region. This monopoly is characterized by more than 40 locations in Northern Kentucky and 12 in Indiana for hospitals, clinics, and laboratories. Then there are 50 locations in “Northern” Kentucky and a dozen in Indiana for St. Elizabeth Health’s companion, St. Elizabeth Physicians. Bolstering this healthcare monopoly is the Certificate of Need.

Monopolies exist to eliminate competition and so it is no surprise that a consequence of the Certificate of Need has been the forced closure of Kentucky’s rural hospitals at an alarming rate. IF Ms. Flowers is sincere about providing affordable care in her district she will join Marianne Proctor in calling for an end to the Certificate of Need. Why? Because competition does two things: 1) it forces innovation and 2) reduces prices.

But instead of calling for the end of the Certificate of Need, Ms. Flowers is calling for the unionization of our healthcare workers. Ms. Flowers seems to have forgotten or is unaware of a few things. First, union membership in the United States has been declining steadily since at 1964 when union membership was roughly 33% of the total labor force. but by 2023 public sector union membership had sunk to just 6%. Second, Kentucky is a “Right to Work” state which means that workers cannot be compelled to join a union in order to work. There is little enthusiasm for unionization in Kentucky. Third, while belonging to a labor union may bring higher wages it also brings higher costs. And finally, there is this from Ms. Flowers:

“Part of a good-paying job is ensuring that employees are cared for with affordable health care coverage. This is why it's so important to support our unions!”

Which begs the question, What about the the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare)? Wasn’t that supposed to bring “affordable healthcare coverage?

After all of that Ms. Flowers offers this about hospitals and businesses that unionize:

“Such companies should be rewarded.”

Given the chance I would ask Ms. Flowers about the small business owner that has fewer than ten employees? Should they also be forced to unionize in order to be “rewarded” by her? This a construct that at best is antithetical to the relationship between the public, business, and government. It throws competition on its ear and it allows the government to decide who should and who should not be successful. It smacks of the government controlled economy of Benito Mussolini in which the government participated in business decisions. It is, in fact, a socialist economic model.

Ms. Flowers concludes her statement on healthcare which is really an expression of her stand on abortion:

“Further, whether the issue is women's reproductive health or mandated vaccines, every human being is entitled to bodily autonomy and to make decisions about their own health care.”

We have seen this language all too often from those on the left who would allow the murder of infants with blatant disregard for their rights.

Ms. Flowers is perfectly happy when the government steps in to protect her “rights” but not when that same government chooses to protect the rights of the infant in her womb. Currently abortions in Kentucky are limited to those being performed when the child is less than six weeks old and when it is necessary to prevent possible death or risk of permanent injury to a pregnant woman. Despite the description by abortion proponents this is not ban.

Bottom line?

Ms. Flowers “plan” for healthcare delivery improvement is neither a plan or even a pathway for improvement of healthcare in Kentucky. In fact, it will only make things worse. A key component of Ms. Flowers’ position on healthcare in Kentucky centers on abortion. IF the people of Kentucky wanted abortion at will with no restraints then they would be sending legislators to Frankfort who would change the law. Instead the people of Northern Kentucky have chosen Representatives and Senators who oppose abortion except in rare instances. For many people of the Commonwealth even that is too much.

Ms. Flowers’ “plan” will continue the Certificate of Need which will continue to force the closure of rural hospitals and drive healthcare costs up while preventing competition and innovation. Expansion of Medicaid will not solve those problems. Finally, unionization is not what Kentucky workers want. If they did they would voluntarily join unions or seek unionization of their workplaces but they are not.

In short, there is no compelling reason to “SendFlowersToTheHouse”.

Union, Kentucky
Happy Columbus Day
12 October 2024