Over the past few
months, my stance on political issues has been somewhat silent. I've
posted a handful of articles on Facebook, and subsequently commented on
others' posts, usually with some snarky response which, while meant to
be amusing, still represented my true feelings about the subject under
discussion. After all, there is truth in humor - at least sometimes.
My biggest voice, however, has been at the voting booths. I've
watched events play out, while not as actively debating about them as I
used to. Certainly not because I've changed my opinion about any of
this. I'm as stubborn as I always was. I've just attempted to avoid
most controversy and negativity for the sake of my own mental health - a
decision whose basis and reason is only known by a few of my closest
friends. (That, of course, is a subject for another time.) But in
light of today's events, I feel compelled to express my opinion(s).
Needless to say, I found today's events to be disappointing and frustrating. To say I'm disgusted with the entire health care debacle would be an understatement. I don't believe the previous health care system was perfect. Denial based on pre-existing conditions, manipulation of premium rates, "selective" coverage - all those were items that needed to be (and still NEED to be) addressed. I am not convinced, however, that this new health care law is the solution. I am floored that some of the glaring flaws bound in the overwhelmingly complex document have either slipped past or been ignored by the Supreme Court. I am annoyed that, rather than discuss the real nuts and bolts of the health care reform, the Supreme Court would rather play a game of semantics about a mandate not being a tax, a tax not being a mandate, or whatever other linguistic loophole they can hide behind. I'm furious that the Supreme Court preferred to disregard each citizen's right to individual liberty by allowing such a law to continue existing. Were it not for my intense love for this country, and the ideals and beliefs instilled within me by my parents, I'd be tempted to defect to another country. (Yes, that's right Facebook/government spy committee - I said "defect".)
One of my first contentions is the ability of those in Congress and other roles of power to opt out of the coverage. Those in these positions are supposed to be American citizens, and as such, should be subjected to the same rules and regulations that they set forth for everyone else. If they're convinced this new law is for the betterment of America, then why would they feel the need to opt out of it? What do they know that we don't? When the question of coverage opt-out was posed to members of Congress over the past several months, I never heard any of them address it directly. Why would American citizens be forced to have coverage if these people are not? Based on the language in the document, not ALL these people are able to opt out, but "Congressional staff who work for Committees or Leadership...are exempt, as are White House staffers." (excerpt taken from http://gerlach.house.gov/hottopics/congressmyths.htm) If the law applies to all other citizens, why do these specific individuals get an exception?
The forced coverage is my second contention. I will admit that I haven't read the document front to back, nor have I hired a lawyer to interpret its insanely long and wordy pages. Doing so would likely cost hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars. My understanding thus far, however, is that citizens will eventually be forced to carry medical coverage. While having medical insurance is certainly a wise choice, the fact is that it should remain a CHOICE, not a requirement. For the government to say we don't have the option of carrying or not carrying coverage is a direct assault on our personal rights. Furthermore, I've heard people say that we DO still have a choice. We don't HAVE to have insurance. My argument to that is: What about the fine imposed on people who don't carry coverage? (Try to call it a tax, mandate, or whatever word makes you feel more comfortable - it's a fine.) If we are still being given a choice, then why does the government feel the need to impose a negative consequence? It's like telling someone that, if they don't go out with you or drive a car of which you approve, you'll kill them. That doesn't sound like a real choice to me.
The whole concept of so-called health care "exchanges" is yet another issue with which I'm not comfortable. It appears that these exchanges would include government-sanctioned health plans from which American citizens could choose. It might be a great idea in theory, but the fact that the GOVERNMENT is deciding what does and doesn't qualify as an acceptable plan seems like a perfect example of the principal-agent problem. The government is helping provide insurance, but they're also able to say what that insurance has to be. Ultimately, you're still choosing a health care plan that the government created, whether you want to admit it or not. This problem is further emphasized by the fact that the government will be providing its OWN health care plan. First, they're telling other insurance companies what they can or cannot do, then they're coming in with their own option. This whole scenario, in my opinion, contradicts the idea of free enterprise. For those who may be uncertain of the meaning of that concept, here it is:
free enterprise
Definition
Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. also called free market.
(Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/2085/free_enterprise.html#ixzz1z8OWl2gI)
If these private insurance companies are forced to comply with government-imposed rules and regulations, then this certainly isn't a free enterprise, and isn't that one of the things that's supposed to make the United States of America so great?
The ability of the government to draw upon massive funds creates another issue. The government has billions, even trillions of dollars at its disposal - much more than many other independent or publicly-owned insurance compan(ies). In turn, the government would likely be able to offer its own health care plans at a much lower premium than other private companies. Let's face it, the government has more finances upon which it can draw to cover expenses - beyond just the insurance premiums - while insurance companies have to rely more heavily, if not solely, on those premiums. As more people move toward the lower premiums offered by government health care, private insurance companies will have less of those clients available, and will have to increase the premiums on their remaining ones. In turn, more people won't be able to afford private insurance, and continue to move toward government insurance. You see the cycle yet?
Then the real fun begins. Once private insurance companies are basically pushed out of the market (if we can still call it that), the government will have created a monopoly, free to manipulate pricing and coverage at its own will. (If I'm not mistaken, antitrust laws exist to prevent the creation of such monopolies, but based on one of my previous contentions, I think we've already shown that those in power don't consider themselves subject to existing laws.) Those who agree with the health care law can argue that the type of coverage offered by the government is stated in the bill, and is set in stone, but if those people think that the current language in the bill won't change at that point, they're sorely mistaken. The government is able to file amendments for a reason, and once they've established themselves as the only source of health insurance coverage, they're pretty free to do whatever they want with it.
I could probably spend the next few days debating and ranting about the reasons why I disagree with this bill, but I think at this point, I've expressed my more serious ones. I've stated these in other forums, sometimes to voices of approval, sometimes to voices of dissent. Yet for all those who disagree with me, I have yet to meet one person who has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that any of my points aren't legitimate, possible, or factual. The fact that the Supreme Court chose to ignore all these things is truly upsetting. If they honestly considered my and other people's arguments that I've heard, then I don't understand how they could feel that the new health care law is Constitutional OR effective. To think that we'd be tossed to the wolves (a.k.a. government) in this manner is very disappointing, sad, and disgusting. The Supreme Court did a great disservice to the people of America today - one that is, in my opinion, unparalleled by any other decision they've made. Not only have they infringed upon our individual rights, but also destroyed the concepts of free enterprise and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court has its own interpretation of what the health law says, but I don't agree with it. Perhaps another issue with the law, however, is its unintelligible language that is far too open to interpretation, and thoroughly understood by only a select few individuals. Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the health care law is so confusing. It was, after all, conceived and written by a former lawyer.
Needless to say, I found today's events to be disappointing and frustrating. To say I'm disgusted with the entire health care debacle would be an understatement. I don't believe the previous health care system was perfect. Denial based on pre-existing conditions, manipulation of premium rates, "selective" coverage - all those were items that needed to be (and still NEED to be) addressed. I am not convinced, however, that this new health care law is the solution. I am floored that some of the glaring flaws bound in the overwhelmingly complex document have either slipped past or been ignored by the Supreme Court. I am annoyed that, rather than discuss the real nuts and bolts of the health care reform, the Supreme Court would rather play a game of semantics about a mandate not being a tax, a tax not being a mandate, or whatever other linguistic loophole they can hide behind. I'm furious that the Supreme Court preferred to disregard each citizen's right to individual liberty by allowing such a law to continue existing. Were it not for my intense love for this country, and the ideals and beliefs instilled within me by my parents, I'd be tempted to defect to another country. (Yes, that's right Facebook/government spy committee - I said "defect".)
One of my first contentions is the ability of those in Congress and other roles of power to opt out of the coverage. Those in these positions are supposed to be American citizens, and as such, should be subjected to the same rules and regulations that they set forth for everyone else. If they're convinced this new law is for the betterment of America, then why would they feel the need to opt out of it? What do they know that we don't? When the question of coverage opt-out was posed to members of Congress over the past several months, I never heard any of them address it directly. Why would American citizens be forced to have coverage if these people are not? Based on the language in the document, not ALL these people are able to opt out, but "Congressional staff who work for Committees or Leadership...are exempt, as are White House staffers." (excerpt taken from http://gerlach.house.gov/hottopics/congressmyths.htm) If the law applies to all other citizens, why do these specific individuals get an exception?
The forced coverage is my second contention. I will admit that I haven't read the document front to back, nor have I hired a lawyer to interpret its insanely long and wordy pages. Doing so would likely cost hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars. My understanding thus far, however, is that citizens will eventually be forced to carry medical coverage. While having medical insurance is certainly a wise choice, the fact is that it should remain a CHOICE, not a requirement. For the government to say we don't have the option of carrying or not carrying coverage is a direct assault on our personal rights. Furthermore, I've heard people say that we DO still have a choice. We don't HAVE to have insurance. My argument to that is: What about the fine imposed on people who don't carry coverage? (Try to call it a tax, mandate, or whatever word makes you feel more comfortable - it's a fine.) If we are still being given a choice, then why does the government feel the need to impose a negative consequence? It's like telling someone that, if they don't go out with you or drive a car of which you approve, you'll kill them. That doesn't sound like a real choice to me.
The whole concept of so-called health care "exchanges" is yet another issue with which I'm not comfortable. It appears that these exchanges would include government-sanctioned health plans from which American citizens could choose. It might be a great idea in theory, but the fact that the GOVERNMENT is deciding what does and doesn't qualify as an acceptable plan seems like a perfect example of the principal-agent problem. The government is helping provide insurance, but they're also able to say what that insurance has to be. Ultimately, you're still choosing a health care plan that the government created, whether you want to admit it or not. This problem is further emphasized by the fact that the government will be providing its OWN health care plan. First, they're telling other insurance companies what they can or cannot do, then they're coming in with their own option. This whole scenario, in my opinion, contradicts the idea of free enterprise. For those who may be uncertain of the meaning of that concept, here it is:
free enterprise
Definition
Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy. also called free market.
(Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/2085/free_enterprise.html#ixzz1z8OWl2gI)
If these private insurance companies are forced to comply with government-imposed rules and regulations, then this certainly isn't a free enterprise, and isn't that one of the things that's supposed to make the United States of America so great?
The ability of the government to draw upon massive funds creates another issue. The government has billions, even trillions of dollars at its disposal - much more than many other independent or publicly-owned insurance compan(ies). In turn, the government would likely be able to offer its own health care plans at a much lower premium than other private companies. Let's face it, the government has more finances upon which it can draw to cover expenses - beyond just the insurance premiums - while insurance companies have to rely more heavily, if not solely, on those premiums. As more people move toward the lower premiums offered by government health care, private insurance companies will have less of those clients available, and will have to increase the premiums on their remaining ones. In turn, more people won't be able to afford private insurance, and continue to move toward government insurance. You see the cycle yet?
Then the real fun begins. Once private insurance companies are basically pushed out of the market (if we can still call it that), the government will have created a monopoly, free to manipulate pricing and coverage at its own will. (If I'm not mistaken, antitrust laws exist to prevent the creation of such monopolies, but based on one of my previous contentions, I think we've already shown that those in power don't consider themselves subject to existing laws.) Those who agree with the health care law can argue that the type of coverage offered by the government is stated in the bill, and is set in stone, but if those people think that the current language in the bill won't change at that point, they're sorely mistaken. The government is able to file amendments for a reason, and once they've established themselves as the only source of health insurance coverage, they're pretty free to do whatever they want with it.
I could probably spend the next few days debating and ranting about the reasons why I disagree with this bill, but I think at this point, I've expressed my more serious ones. I've stated these in other forums, sometimes to voices of approval, sometimes to voices of dissent. Yet for all those who disagree with me, I have yet to meet one person who has proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that any of my points aren't legitimate, possible, or factual. The fact that the Supreme Court chose to ignore all these things is truly upsetting. If they honestly considered my and other people's arguments that I've heard, then I don't understand how they could feel that the new health care law is Constitutional OR effective. To think that we'd be tossed to the wolves (a.k.a. government) in this manner is very disappointing, sad, and disgusting. The Supreme Court did a great disservice to the people of America today - one that is, in my opinion, unparalleled by any other decision they've made. Not only have they infringed upon our individual rights, but also destroyed the concepts of free enterprise and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court has its own interpretation of what the health law says, but I don't agree with it. Perhaps another issue with the law, however, is its unintelligible language that is far too open to interpretation, and thoroughly understood by only a select few individuals. Then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the health care law is so confusing. It was, after all, conceived and written by a former lawyer.
