In addition to being a George W. Bush appointee, Judge Hudson also has a financial stake in the personal mandate being ruled unconstitutional. He's part owner of a Republican consulting firm hired to lobby against Democratic health care reform. Quite the conflict of interest to say the least. Yet that hasn't stopped Republicans from jumping for joy at his ruling. In the long run, it wouldn't matter if they had their drug addicted Rush Limbaugh ruling on health care reform, because in the end it's going to come down to one or two Justices on the Supreme Court to finally decide what is or isn't within the legal limits of the Constitution.
But the left is putting way too much focus on the personal mandate in my opinion. There are no shortages of ideas to getting around the concept of a personal mandate that will make the rest of the health care reform package effective as ever.
In short let's review why the mandate is necessary in the first place. Without the requirement that everyone have a minimum amount of health care insurance, people will wait until they are sick before purchasing insurance. This will cause the only people in the health care pools to be sick people. Thus forcing premiums to skyrocket. Let's be honest, what keeps prices down are healthy people. The more healthy people in the pool the cheaper the rates.
So how do we get around this without making people feel as if government is burdening them yet again with a mandate they feel they'll never use? Easily enough, just let people opt out of the mandate. But if they do, they ain't getting back in. At least not for 5-7 years. If they become sick and need insurance they can go through Medicaid or fork out money to pay their new premiums, which I'm sure will be high if they are even allowed back in the private insurance pool. Dare I say all this might create a sense of personal responsibility? That will make individuals appreciate the fact that government is trying to actually alleviate the situation rather than burdening them. Most people will never realize such a simple concept mainly because Fox News will never tell it like that. You don't appreciate health insurance until you don't have it, and that's a fact.
Another way around it is one I wrote about last month. It's a plan submitted by Republicans and Democrats that would speed up the waiver date for states to opt-out. This will allow states to create their own version of HCR. If the states do good and create a program cheaper and better than the federal system, then they get to keep it and enjoy the copy cats that will latch on to their program from all over the country. If the state fails to create a better system, then they'll be backed up by a federal system that is already in place (I'm looking at you Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas). The more liberal states can have their personal mandate and the more
To wrap this up, I think the personal mandate will be upheld by the Supreme Court. I just don't think the political insistence that it is the backbone of HCR is necessary. At least not in terms of making the federal government look as if it is creating an even bigger nanny state. Government need not be a bully. And if it really wants to create innovation the best way to do that is to allow freedom of thought and a little creativity by the states. A little creativity by our representatives wouldn't hurt either but that might be too much to ask.
0 comments :
Post a Comment