Characterizing the insurance mandate

author — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:19:08 +0000

There has been a lot of public debate lately about having an insurance mandate as part of the health care reform proposal, and the characterization of it has been met with varying opinions. The main disparity is centered on whether this should be considered a tax increase hence breaking the campaign promise of not raising taxes on people making less than $250k. Supporters of the mandate are feverishly defending it as simply providing for one’s own health care or being assessed a penalty upon failure to obtain such coverage. Critics are countering with the fact that the Government is mandating this on its citizens thus it is effectively a tax. While the politicians, pundits, and the media are debating how to label this forced participation, it should not be difficult for us citizens to characterize the end result. Regardless of what official label is ascribed to it as the political games continue, the one certainty is it will extract money out of the pockets of citizens. This will surely be the case if you are not currently buying insurance or if you are directed to upgrade your current policy because it is deemed insufficient or unacceptable by our Government. From a logical point of view, it really does not matter if you call it a tax, penalty, fine, assessment, fee, or any other designation because the Government taking or directing money away from someone involuntarily will still have the same tangible impact. If people prefer to call it a penalty versus a tax or a fee versus a fine then they are free to do so because the result is identical. The debate is disingenuous because it is nothing more than political posturing for the sole purpose of shaping the public’s opinion on classifying the sequestering of people from their money, but we as a public should understand this. It seems foolish to care about the political debate describing the mandate when the outcome of its implementation is already known, we should remain observant of substance over form. This game is only important to politicians so they can refute any future accusations of busted campaign promises once confronted by opponents, but it should remain pointless to us.

The health care debate should focus on one crucial element

author — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:27:22 +0000

People across the nation are currently getting all twisted up in town halls and other demonstrations concerning the Government’s proposed health care reform. The outcry is very understandable because it is an emotional issue that affects all of us and the outcome will have lasting effects on our nation. Every facet of the proposed bill is being argued, but only one single issue is really essential concerning the 1500+ pages of legalese. It is not what is covered, rationing of care, choice, single payer, or whether grandma will be allowed to live to her 75th birthday. The crucial point of the entire bill is where will the decision authority reside after its passage and into the future. Currently, this judgment exists at the point of service with patients and their doctors along with some occasional battles with an insurance company. The question to be answered within the debate is does this authority continue to fully reside with the individual or does it shift some or all of the power over to the Government. The answer to this question can be obscured because it must be determined exactly how much may shift to the Government up front, and how much may slowly be absorbed by them over time due to the system they purposely established to encourage adoption. This is really the crux of the issue because if the individual maintains control then the market will respond accordingly, if the Government gains control instantly or gradually through time, then we could only expect them to bring about all the nightmare scenarios we currently fear. The details of the proposal as it stands right now are meaningless because once control is officially conveyed then bureaucrats will determine the specifics from that day forward. A system will be created that allows them to make any changes on the spot they deem reasonable, or they can incrementally initiate changes that will bring about the same results in due time. During this debate, it is wise to remember that the Government only acquires power through citizens relinquishing it, and once it is attained, they will surely use it with healthcare in much the same way as they used the commerce clause in the past to manipulate our lives and behavior as recently argued.

Simply analyzing the proposal through the lens of where control resides upon its passage should be the foremost objective of this entire debate, and the timing of any attained control is irrelevant because the outcome will serve to the same end. All the other details within the current bill are just distractions that can confuse or be used to influence the public to facilitate passing the proposal. They serve mostly as a red herring because the resulting outcome of the control issue will determine the details that will be enjoyed by everyone except our elite politicians of course. People have to fully comprehend the inherent danger of allowing the Government to control our healthcare despite concerns that any individual’s specific health is not going to be paramount. Regardless of the message being conveyed, our Government has a history littered with broken promises and gross mismanagement because it will serve itself at all costs to include the health of any citizen. Furthermore, not supporting the proposal as currently written does not suggest that healthcare concerns in our nation do not need to be addressed and improved. We only need to debate the prudence of giving our politicians a mandate of control, the specific details will fall into place accordingly upon resolution.

Dose of Clarity » health insurance

Characterizing the insurance mandate

The health care debate should focus on one crucial element