Obamacare (Guest Post )

FREY vs FREY

Before I respond to FreyGuy’s defense of the ever-changing Health Care Legislation, especially his predilection for a so-called “public option”, I’ll first throw a giant monkey wrench into all the prior arguments. However, before I do that, I would note, by analogy, to which a future physicist can relate, that the legislative initiatives seem to come and go so fast, that were they mapped mathematically, the curve would more resemble a continuous function, rather than a discrete set of points.

Get ready, here’s the monkey wrench!

Congress has no authority under the Constitution to regulate health care.

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html)

Congress is relying – mistakenly – on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1)

which states:

[Congress shall have the power] “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

This clause is among seventeen powers specifically ascribed to the federal government under Section 8. If a power is not so contained among the seventeen it is expressly reserved to the states (AMENDMENT X):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx

Thus the Framers, even in their most soaring flights of fancy, never envisioned that 1/6th of the Nation’s economy would be subject to federal regulation. So, even if a poll showed that 100% of the people favored federal government run health care, the Constitution does not allow it. Poll results, however, change significantly when the question posed expressly adds a proviso that asks their opinion if added taxes or other confiscatory measures are placed upon the respondent.

However, for the sake of pure argument, let us wave an arbitrary hand and grant that, in a prolonged fit of legislative insanity, such powers did indeed reside within the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest deliberative body.” (As an aside, if this is the world’s greatest deliberative body, with average IQ less than 100, and nary a one above 125, then I shudder to imagine the acumen of a lesser deliberative body).

Now let us examine whether universal health care is an idea with merit.

First, let us set forth a few maxims which should govern the discussion:

• All insurance, whether auto, life, home, health, etc., and regardless of who delivers it, represents, by definition, a risk sharing pool. I.e., each participant puts his or her small amount of cash in a pool to provide protection against calamitous events which will be paid from the moneys supplied by other members of the pool (as well as earnings retained from prior activities of the insurance provider).

• Save for the auto segment, insurance is elective. In the case of auto insurance, it is mandatory not to protect you from others, but to protect others from you. In addition, the mandate comes not from the federal government, but from each of the 50 states. Health care insurance is to protect you. And to silence another oft –used, but ill-informed parallel, that home insurance is mandatory, it is not. It is only mandatory if you have a mortgage, which is required by the lender to protect his collateral. If you own your house outright, you can elect to insure it or not.

• Health care, under the Constitution, is not a right. It may be a compassionate thing to do, but it is not a natural right. Natural rights are a philosophical construct put forth by Thomas Jefferson who decreed that such rights are “endowed by the Creator” as opposed to the Adamsonian school, which argued that they were conferred “by the consent of the governed.” While both phrases are contained in the Declaration of Independence, a simple reading of the document, as well as scholarly review, admit that Jefferson’s take precedence. (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)

Your natural rights are spelled out in the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, proposed by James Madison in 1789 and enacted into law in 1791. There is no mention of a ‘Right’ to health care in the Bill of Rights.

Thus, any insurance product represents a potential redistribution of wealth from those who have no claims to those who do, as well as the wealth of the insurance provider in case the premium pool (plus earnings thereon) is insufficient to cover claims. It is potential, because, if there are no claims, then, at least in the case of mutual insurance companies, excess moneys are returned to the policy holders in the form of dividends, as they are the owners of the company.

The difference between a private plan and a public one is that, in the former, the wealth redistribution takes place voluntarily between the participants in the risk sharing pool (and potentially the insurance company), whereas, with a public plan, the redistribution occurs involuntarily, from all taxpayers to those covered under the plan. Now, I don’t know about you, but when a governmental body tells me I have to do something, especially when their authority to do so is highly questionable, my natural inclination is to respond, UP YOURS!

Below are the issues I have with nationalized health care, at least in its current form. If anyone can offer reasonable assurance that these allegations have any factual basis, I’d feel more sanguine about climbing aboard the OBAMAWAGON.

1. Nationalized Health Care Won’t Cost Anything.
There are six dimensions to this facade. Four purportedly raise revenue; two reduce costs. Here they are:
• Revenue components
o Raise taxes on employers
Employers will raise prices on their goods & services, so this tax will be passed on to the consumer.
o Raise taxes on individuals
This is simply wealth redistribution, a veritable staple in the liberal/socialist financial cupboard, which is trying to turn America from a land of equal opportunity to a land of equal financial outcomes.
o Tax the insurance benefit (a 2nd tax)
Now here’s a novel idea. Presumably, if you receive health coverage from a private group plan offered and partially subsidized by your employer, the government wants to tax the benefit represented by the difference you pay under the group plan vs. the bucks you’d pay if you obtained the coverage outside the group plan. The problem is that, when filing your tax return, the IRS rules require that your income and expenses be cash-based. This is not a cash benefit, so the IRS would have to impute a non-cash value to this benefit, abrogating its own rules. Nice!
o Mandatory insurance
Forces the young & healthy, who don’t need coverage, to subsidize those who do (see#9 below)
• Cost saving components
o Reduce payments to doctors
This is a real savings, unless doctors begin leaving the profession in droves. If you coupled it with tort reform (see below) there’s real potential here.
o Reduce Medicare benefits
This is a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It saves no money, just transfers wealth from one pocket (senior citizens) to another (the uninsured).
There’s also a real cost saving conspicuous by its absence: tort reform. I.e., rein in the ambulance chasing legal bottom-dwellers. Given the American Bar Association donates overwhelmingly to the Democratic party, this is as likely to occur as the sun is to revolve around the Earth.
2. There will be no Health Care Rationing
This is simple supply & demand economics. If there is more demand for a product or service and/or less supply, the price will rise. But if we mandate more people be insured and slash moneys paid to providers, the system enters disequilibrium and service queues form until supply/demand equilibrium is re-established. England and Canada are prime examples. This is rationing by delay rather than by financial wherewithal. To paraphrase an old legal adage, “healthcare delayed is healthcare denied.”
3. The Government can Efficiently Run a National Health Care System
OK, let’s look at the record:
• Social Security – BROKE!
• Medicare – BROKE!
• Medicaid – BROKE!
• AMTRAK – BROKE!
• Post Office - BROKE!
• The Federal Budget - BROKE!
Do we detect a pattern here?! If so, why would we expect different results in a Nationalized Health Care System? Isn’t one of the classic definitions of insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result?
4. Our Congressmen Know What’s in the Bill
Be serious! The bill stretches beyond 1,000 pages. Indeed, the bill likely emanating from a congressional conference committee is estimated at 2,300 pages. Congress hasn’t read that much of anything in their collective lifetime. Their staffs prepare summaries for them. Most staffers are 22-25 years of age, fresh out of college with liberal arts degrees, rendering them largely uneducated.

An example should suffice to lay this myth to rest. When the Patriot Act, pushed by then president Bush, was signed into law in OCT 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) , Congress, via their internal intranet, had no access to the Bill until 15 minutes before the roll call. It was 315 pages long. There was no time to read it before the vote. Therefore, they were completely unaware of its contents when they voted overwhelmingly to enact it. This will be no different, except that the Healthcare Bill is three to eight times the length and even less likely to be read and understood.
5. The Bill Won’t Change at the Last Minute
Yes it will! Messrs. Reid and Pelosi (that’s right, I’m not sure Pelosi is a real woman, just as I’m uncertain that Barney Frank is a real man) have already said it will, and one of those changes they’ve alluded to will be a public option. Congressman Frank wants to use the public option to get to a Government run single-payer system and has publicly said so.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&feature=related).

Single-payer means there is no insurance provider save the federal government.

(BTW, do you recall when Congressman Frank, at his own town hall meeting, dissed a constituent by asking what planet she was from, forgetting, in the process, that he was there to serve them, and not vice-versa. What she should have responded was, “I’m from Mother Earth, but, based on your nocturnal proclivities, I’m pretty sure you’re not.”)
6. There will be no Pork in the Bill
Really?! Please comb the public record and find a single bill that didn’t include congressional pork.
7. Illegal Immigrants won’t be Covered by the Legislation
Uhhh, …, I don’t think so! While both House and Senate proposals purportedly exclude illegal aliens, they purposely exempt any requirement for such a person to provide identification. Republican amendments to require picture IDs from public option health care recipients have been defeated by Democratic party-line vote. This is the type of weaseling which makes people circumspect about how Congress operates and the degree of trust they should be accorded.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m8d3-Illegal-aliens-will-be-covered-under-Obamas-healthcare-bill
8. The Public Option Won’t Squeeze Out Private Alternatives
By the Bill’s provisions, it will by statistical osmosis. I.e., if you’re covered by a private group plan, and leave that employer, you can’t enroll in a new employer’s group plan; you must go into the public option. Since most people change jobs during their careers, all those will be forced into the public option.

In addition, a private plan must meet the definition of being “qualified”. I.e., based on yet-to-be-determined government rules, if your employer’s private plan doesn’t meet the government’s standards, you’ll be forced into a public option, like it or not.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm
9. Insurance Coverage is not Mandatory.
It will be mandatory; that’s one of the ways to cover costs. Young adults, who are healthy, and may not see a doctor for years, will be required to join simply to subsidize others who need health services. In fact the more recent legislative versions allow the IRS to levy a penalty and the Justice Department to throw you in jail if you refuse to join. Now, I can tell you most assuredly that were I a young person (which I’m not, to which the OLD MAN can, and most enthusiastically would, attest), and were I to want the insurance, I would refuse it just to be able to tell the IRS to stick it where the sun don’t shine. And if the Justice Department comes ‘a-callin’, I’m going to invoke my 2nd Amendment rights.
10. If Additional Taxes on Companies and Individuals Exceed Claims, the Gub’mint will Return our Money
BWAHAHAHA! This supposition is so preposterous it deserves no reply!
11. The Federal Government has the Authority to Nationalize Health Care
No it doesn’t! We’ve already slain that beast in the preamble to this missive.

Finally, isn’t it heartening and inspiring to know that Congress, in a true egalitarian spirit, and with a deep and abiding concern for the constituencies who elected them, has not exempted its own members from the very law it purports to impose upon the rest of us?

OH, WAIT!! THEY DID!!

(http://kingsrightsite.blogspot.com/2009/07/end-congressional-exemption-from-obama.html)

(http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50756)


Guest Post by JR Berger