Firstly, I find it to be quite scary how uneducated the majority of the population is about this subject. I do not profess to be an expert in this either, but I have done some research. Here are a few things I think are important to know about this Act.
- Insurance companies will now be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (except tobacco use)
- If you do not have private insurance (be it through work, Medicare, Medicaid, or buying it on your own), you will participate or you will pay a tax. (except in cases of religious exclusion or financial hardship)
- Medicaid eligibility is expanded. If your income is within 133% of the poverty level, you qualify.
- Low income families get this coverage subsidized. (paid for via our tax dollar) For example, a family of 4 could have coverage for about $50/mo if their income were 150% of the poverty level.
- Insurance companies can no longer have annual and lifetime caps, meaning you don't lose your insurance if you use it.
- Companies with 50 or more employees will have a "shared responsibility" (ie. a tax) if the government is subsidizing any of their employees healthcare.
- Copays and deductibles will be eliminated for some types of benefits like preventative care
There is a lot more to it, but I think these are the most important parts.
Here's where my opinion comes in. Healthcare for everyone is not a bad thing. Anyone of the millions of Americans without healthcare will love this plan, as they should. I have no need of this plan, but that does not mean others might not. However, I do not support this plan for a number of reasons. First off, and I think this is most critical, we did not vote for it. Well, we did not vote for it directly. We voted in the legislators and the President to represent us. They put this in place, so indirectly, we did ask for it. But with something so major, it should have been decided by the people.
The reason this got through the Supreme Court was that it does not violate the law because it's a tax. There is nothing illegal about creating and levying a tax against the people. It happens all the time. It's also why people get voted out of office for creating unpopular taxes. This tax however, is different. The government is stretching its fingers into territory that scares me. It is forcing, via tax, the people to participate in health insurance. One might ask "Jesse, how is this a bad thing? Having health insurance is good!" but that's not exactly the point. If the government can tax me in to participating in this, what else could I be forced to participate in? Healthcare taxes lead to other taxes that force participation in other programs. How hard is to to envision a nationally sponsored physical fitness standard which would tax those who are a heavier burden on the national healthcare plan? (of course, that standard would be skewed as not all people of a certain build are unhealthy) Not meeting the standard would result in an additional tax burden meant to subsidize those who cannot afford to pay. NY is already trying to ban any sales of soda over 20 oz due to it being allegedly unhealthy so what else can the government force? Watching too much TV is unhealthy. Fried foods are unhealthy.
Yes, it seems that we are stretching into an illogical extreme, but fundamentally, the freedom to choose for ones self is a foundation of our country as a whole. We choose our religions or not to worship at all. We choose our professions. We choose what to watch, what to eat, where to spend our money, ect. The government is showing that they now have the ability to erode those choices. We are forced to spend our money at the will of government on a healthcare plan. We are given the illusion of choice in that we can choose which plan we want to participate in, but it is compulsory, in that we have no choice.
Secondarily, my issue with this comes in the fact that more and more, the government is working to force a balance between those with and those without. There line between Capitalism and Socialism is a razor's edge. The reason our nation has grown and prospered was because you keep what you earn. You get what you are worth. When the government takes from one group to give to another, the motivation to exceed your current position deteriorates. National healthcare in this form violates the fundamentals of Capitalism. The "shared responsibility" concept is that everyone is required to care for everyone else in some capacity and those with must relinquish some of what they have for the greater good of everyone, especially those without. This is a Socialistic style policy. I do not wish to start a comparison of good vs bad when it comes to these policies, as they both have good and bad traits. Where the problem lies is that Socialism places the trust to do the right things in the hands of the bureaucrats and takes it away from the people. The bureaucrats chose this plan, not the people. Milton Friedman said "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. The power to do good is also the power to harm". I do not question the desire that President Obama had in creation of this plan. I question the wisdom in making the decision unilaterally.
Finally, there is the question of money and execution. This is a welfare policy at is most fundamental. It has to be paid for and it has to be managed. Our government has a history of mismanaging money and programs. The money comes from the taxpayer, both individual and business. At a time of slow economic recovery, where is the wisdom in creating a new tax? At a time of higher unemployment, where is the wisdom in creating a policy that forces the small business to decide between job creation and healthcare? The question should be if the government has the capacity and knowledge required to execute such an ambitious program. Our current welfare programs are overrun by people who creatively find ways to exploit them to their own personal advantage. How will this be different? Based on history, I expect that it won't. There are programs that should be fixed now but have not been.
This debate goes far deeper, and I am not even hitting all the important points. But for the sake of length, I will stop here and ask you "What do you think should be done?" Personally, I believe that the timing of this is wrong. I believe the execution of this is wrong. And I believe that the wrong people are making the decisions. There is a fine line between representation and repression. We asked to be represented, not to be forced.
Please feel free to leave comments below.
if we voted for every issue separately that would makes us a democracy which we are not - we are a republic, letting everybody vote for every issue makes 51% of the population a ruling party - which is scary in its own right.
ReplyDelete