Even as "Obamacare" is imploding from costs that are not covered, young people who are not signing up, and premiums that are sky-rocketing, the Media, Ideological Right and Ideological Left point fingers at each other, and talk past each other. And it is so obvious that one cannot escape the strong suspicion, if not certainty, that they are doing it on purpose to mislead the vast majority of the public.
First, a review of the facts shows that Obamacare has apparently increased the number that is covered by healthcare of some kind.
The difficulty with this claim arises when we ask ourselves if it is insurance, regardless of scope, that we want to extend to people...or is it increased paid-for actual medical coverage that all of us see as the goal.
Healthcare Insurance comes in various forms...at least it used come in many forms. You could chose to select catastrophic insurance plans, where the costs were low because you had no benefit until medical costs exceeded a selected limit...often more than $5,000 for an illness...because you budgeted for normal and ordinary Doctor's visits and accidents.
Then there were the normal, what I used to think of as the Blue Cross/Blue Shield, plans. These covered normal costs of doctors and hospitals in a variety of ways. You could chose a network of doctors and hospitals, out of network providers and select any number of co-pay limits and/or drug coverage.
The point of these offerings was to enable any person or family unit to balance cost of premiums against their medical coverage preferences. Those who had the choice of insurance provided by their employers usually benefited from the employer's negotiating good premium terms, and often had portions of those premiums actually paid by the employer. But if you left that job, every person had the option of continuing that coverage, albeit at a higher rate. But you wanted to continue coverage so that you didn't trigger a non-covered period (usually a year or 18 months) for any discovered pre-existing condition.
The motivation for getting, paying for, and continuing Medical Insurance coverage was to protect against preexisting conditions which might or might not develop. It wasn't enough to have just any policy; you needed to have coverage that was useful.
Obamacare was and remains the equivalent of a con, because it claims to offer a benefit that turns out to be non-existent; the premiums are increasingly exorbitant while the deductibles are so high as to turn the policies into catastrophic only coverage that isn't what most purchasers had before and expected to continue under the promises made by President Obama regarding Obamacare.
And now the Congress is repeating the same mistake. The only motivation that will cause younger people (and families) to chose to purchase Medical-care Insurance is the fear of discovery of preexisting conditions. Obamacare proved that a financial penalty wasn't enough if there were no prohibition of coverage due to preexisting conditions. Besides, without that exception of coverage, what you are trying to provide is NOT insurance at all, but socialized medical coverage. Without making citizens responsible for the consequences of their planning and their actions, you are socializing the medical costs of everyone. And that is exorbitantly expensive.
If the government wants to provide ability and incentive for all citizens to have USEFUL medical coverage, provide a limited period (perhaps 18 months) for everyone to select, sign up for, and begin to pay for medical coverage of their choice with coverage for preexisting conditions. But upon expiration of that period, reinstate the preexisting condition exclusion.
Additionally, for the poor (and there needs to be a certain definition of what that is) set up a means for catastrophic coverage costs to be reimbursed to the purchaser by the government, with the government also picking up any intervening hospital and practitioners' costs upon their supplying factual and audited data.
The key, though, is to mandate that the people themselves have to be responsible for selecting, and processing the necessary applications for coverage and, where appropriate, reimbursement. If that is done, truly everyone will have the opportunity to access meaningful medical insurance coverage. But it is opportunity that needs to be provided...not a guarantee.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Thursday, June 25, 2015
No longer Checks and Balances on Congress by SCOTUS
Laws no longer mean what they say. Congress no longer need concern itself with careful and accurate writing and wording. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will plug the breach, intuit the "real" intent of Congress while ignoring the actual wording of the duly passed statute, and save the day. Of course, there is a consequence for this service: SCOTUS has now re-affirmed its move from co-equal branch of Congress to a second rate arm of Congress. We have ceased to be a nation governed by laws and now are dependent on a political class that continues to fund the courts as a sap to many who wish to continue to delude themselves that there is a check and balance against Congress. Anyone with a brain recalls how Congress "crowed" about the condition of creating a State Healthcare program as a prerequisite to getting Federal Funding. They tried to blackmail the States and it didn't work, so now they went to their underlings, the Supreme Court, to absolutely legislate from the bench and eliminate holding Congress responsible for its actions. "Umpires" indeed...if so this is the Black Sox Scandal with the Umpires bought off instead of the Players. Does anyone question whether SCOTUS' budget request will now be granted in full?
There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon. This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is." So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally: now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us." How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country. Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now. Deservedly so.
There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon. This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is." So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally: now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us." How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country. Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now. Deservedly so.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Obamacare and the Supreme Court: any good options?
There was a reasonable argument from the very beginning that the Mandate in Obamacare made the whole Act unconstitutional. And the line of questioning recently by the Supreme Court Justices suggest that they see the same problem. But...that is only the beginning of the morass. If they see the mandate as unconstitutional, what is the next step?...and why? Whats the problem, you ask? Well, there are two follow-up directions to determine if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional: it that mandate severable from the rest of the act, or not. If it is, then the rest of the Act could continue to stand. If not, then the whole Act must also be ruled unconstitutional.
The Court in the past has bent over backwards to sever parts of bills, and they will undoubtedly look to do the same here. But there are considerable problems with this, however. And those problems go back to the clear language of Congressional deliberations prior to and construction of the final ACA. Specifically, the original draft provided for a severability clause; it, as most bills do, indicated that if for any reason a portion of the bill were to be ruled unenforceable, the rest of the the bill could stand and be severed from the failed portion. However, Congress removed that clause. And, in addition, the Congressional Record shows that the Democrat majority which passed the final bill both understood and agreed that without the mandate the bill would be a financial disaster.
So, both logically and logistically, it would seem that Congress intended that the entire bill should and would fail if the mandate failed. Ah, but enter the illogical and thoughtless process that so pervades our Capitol and its inhabitants: as it passed, some desirable things were tacked on as a quick, expedient way to get them passed when it was suspected that they would not be enacted on their own merits...and then consider that some of the provisions in the Act are actually desirable, such as the elimination of limits on benefits and raises in premiums after purchase in response to developed claims.
The clear...and neat...way would seem to not severe the mandate and rule the entire bill unconstitutional as the Congress clearly intended. That way, Congressional negotiations could begin immediately to formulate a way of re-establishing those particular insurance rules that most people would agree should be re-enacted and thus preserved. And I earnestly hope that will come to pass...but in the meantime, the spectacle is absolutely riveting.
The Court in the past has bent over backwards to sever parts of bills, and they will undoubtedly look to do the same here. But there are considerable problems with this, however. And those problems go back to the clear language of Congressional deliberations prior to and construction of the final ACA. Specifically, the original draft provided for a severability clause; it, as most bills do, indicated that if for any reason a portion of the bill were to be ruled unenforceable, the rest of the the bill could stand and be severed from the failed portion. However, Congress removed that clause. And, in addition, the Congressional Record shows that the Democrat majority which passed the final bill both understood and agreed that without the mandate the bill would be a financial disaster.
So, both logically and logistically, it would seem that Congress intended that the entire bill should and would fail if the mandate failed. Ah, but enter the illogical and thoughtless process that so pervades our Capitol and its inhabitants: as it passed, some desirable things were tacked on as a quick, expedient way to get them passed when it was suspected that they would not be enacted on their own merits...and then consider that some of the provisions in the Act are actually desirable, such as the elimination of limits on benefits and raises in premiums after purchase in response to developed claims.
The clear...and neat...way would seem to not severe the mandate and rule the entire bill unconstitutional as the Congress clearly intended. That way, Congressional negotiations could begin immediately to formulate a way of re-establishing those particular insurance rules that most people would agree should be re-enacted and thus preserved. And I earnestly hope that will come to pass...but in the meantime, the spectacle is absolutely riveting.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The Argument is NOT about Entitlement Reduction...
Only in America is lying encouraged and actually protected by the Law of the Land...especially in politics. I have spent the better part of a month trying to analyze the arguments about what is falsely called "Entitlement" reform. Such a misnomer...everyone who has worked at all has had part of their pay confiscated to "fund" both Social Security and Medicare, but the politicians for some reason want to call paying back what we have paid for an "Entitlement." But that is a subject for still another day's discussion...or thought...or whatever...
Today I want to write out my understanding of the argument regarding Medicare. The so-called Republican plan is pretty easy to get. Ryan has written out his plan and taken whatever heat or praise that the facts of the plan elicit. It acknowledges that right now, payments taken in return for a promise to pay in the future are, in fact, a fraud and a crime...since the funds knowingly will not be available to provide the promised benefits in the future. So he proposes keeping the promises for those for whom it is too late to do anything themselves to cover for the fraud of the government. But, he openly changes the Medicare system to 1) bring it closer to the people by moving control away from Washington, D.C., and into the individual states, and 2) bringing it even more in tune with the people by making the amounts available to the individual available to that individual so that he or she may chose who or what supplier of Medical Coverage should bet their coverage.
But...and there is no suggestion that this is NOT true...the amount of money will not increase and there will be a possibility of financial burden that falls on individuals. Those who can afford it will pay toward Doctor's visits and will contribute toward services costs.
Here is the curious fact, though. The so-called Democrat solution has exactly the same results...at least as far as reducing the dollar value of benefits is concerned. Yes, indeed. Sure, I know you haven't seen any video of any Democrat pushing "granny" over a cliff...but everybody is sure going off of a cliff...sometime.
The only question...and the only difference between the ideological left and right...is when and who will be blamed. It is NOT a question of IF.
Here are the facts as I read and hear them:
1) Both sides actually agree that nothing will change for all current citizens and current recipients who are 55 years of age or older;
2) The Ryan plan puts funding policy directly into the hands of the individual state and individual funding decisions on provider and coverage selection directly into the hands of the individual who has paid into the system. He relies on competitive free-market competition to keep those premiums as low as possible and the benefits as inclusive as possible, but that is not controlled by government edict, but by the laws of supply and demand, which will presumably be intensified by eliminating the state laws limiting cross-state competition in the area of Health Insurance;
3) The Democrat plan (as explained by everyone who has spoken with any apparent intelligence and honesty on the subject, and as verified as much as possible by my reading of the Obamacare bill) is, of course, put into effect by Obamacare is claims to reduce costs. Actually, it doesn't...but, again, that particular element is for another discussion. What is important, and what Democrat spokesmen will NEVER admit, is that it also reduces benefits over time. Yep... somebody is going off the cliff. But no Democrat will ever have his or her direct fingerprints on the wheelchair. Why? Because they blame it on someone ... anyone...everyone...else.
"How can that be?" you ask. Simple. Obamacare over time required cost controls which effect payments to providers. And they set up bureaucratic committees that will determine what is "proper" treatment that will be covered...read, "paid for"...by reimbursement. It also reduces over time the amount paid to Doctors and Hospitals for specific types of care and treatment. Note, that they still argue that these payments...even as reduced...will be the "right" amount to ensure that the patient gets total care with now additional payment by them.
What does this mean? It means that as the payments that you were told were going to provide you with medical care get too small for Doctors and Hospitals to make a living and pay off their own huge debts, they will chose to not accept patients who are on Medicare. And Insurance Companies who you have paid for ancillary services to avoid any additional payments for gaps in coverage will adjust their coverages to match that which the government has dictated.
The result is that the Democrat plan will also have some people...maybe people who are not yet as old as granny...pushed off of the proverbial coverage cliff. The only difference is that Obamacare will blame the Insurance companies, the doctors and the hospitals and claim innocence of any contributory involvement.
This is very attractive to all politicians for whom results are not nearly as important as avoidance of blame. It is also attractive to a lot of voters who embrace the concept of victim-hood and also value the concept of taking a chance of failure if that failure will ultimately be able to be blamed on someone else.
The Ryan plan acknowledge that there is no certainty of total coverage, but insures that the value that you pay into the program will come back to you...and attempts to put into individuals' hands the power to maximize the economic power that those funds represent. Yes...it does put the responsibility of using those funds in an intelligent way on the States and the Individual. That means that you have the power of achieving great success or abysmal failure. Amazing concept, isn't it: Freedom of Choice is NOT Freedom from Consequences...good, ...or bad. But there is a certain rush of excitement there...or is it the breath of FREEDOM. You decide.
(Oh...and for you non-believers...currently, your Medicare premiums over the years total about $57,000 while the medical benefits that you use total in excess of $158,000. In a few years those numbers will be near or above $80,000 and $230,000 respectively. Medicare IS broke...and you need to accept that.)
Today I want to write out my understanding of the argument regarding Medicare. The so-called Republican plan is pretty easy to get. Ryan has written out his plan and taken whatever heat or praise that the facts of the plan elicit. It acknowledges that right now, payments taken in return for a promise to pay in the future are, in fact, a fraud and a crime...since the funds knowingly will not be available to provide the promised benefits in the future. So he proposes keeping the promises for those for whom it is too late to do anything themselves to cover for the fraud of the government. But, he openly changes the Medicare system to 1) bring it closer to the people by moving control away from Washington, D.C., and into the individual states, and 2) bringing it even more in tune with the people by making the amounts available to the individual available to that individual so that he or she may chose who or what supplier of Medical Coverage should bet their coverage.
But...and there is no suggestion that this is NOT true...the amount of money will not increase and there will be a possibility of financial burden that falls on individuals. Those who can afford it will pay toward Doctor's visits and will contribute toward services costs.
Here is the curious fact, though. The so-called Democrat solution has exactly the same results...at least as far as reducing the dollar value of benefits is concerned. Yes, indeed. Sure, I know you haven't seen any video of any Democrat pushing "granny" over a cliff...but everybody is sure going off of a cliff...sometime.
The only question...and the only difference between the ideological left and right...is when and who will be blamed. It is NOT a question of IF.
Here are the facts as I read and hear them:
1) Both sides actually agree that nothing will change for all current citizens and current recipients who are 55 years of age or older;
2) The Ryan plan puts funding policy directly into the hands of the individual state and individual funding decisions on provider and coverage selection directly into the hands of the individual who has paid into the system. He relies on competitive free-market competition to keep those premiums as low as possible and the benefits as inclusive as possible, but that is not controlled by government edict, but by the laws of supply and demand, which will presumably be intensified by eliminating the state laws limiting cross-state competition in the area of Health Insurance;
3) The Democrat plan (as explained by everyone who has spoken with any apparent intelligence and honesty on the subject, and as verified as much as possible by my reading of the Obamacare bill) is, of course, put into effect by Obamacare is claims to reduce costs. Actually, it doesn't...but, again, that particular element is for another discussion. What is important, and what Democrat spokesmen will NEVER admit, is that it also reduces benefits over time. Yep... somebody is going off the cliff. But no Democrat will ever have his or her direct fingerprints on the wheelchair. Why? Because they blame it on someone ... anyone...everyone...else.
"How can that be?" you ask. Simple. Obamacare over time required cost controls which effect payments to providers. And they set up bureaucratic committees that will determine what is "proper" treatment that will be covered...read, "paid for"...by reimbursement. It also reduces over time the amount paid to Doctors and Hospitals for specific types of care and treatment. Note, that they still argue that these payments...even as reduced...will be the "right" amount to ensure that the patient gets total care with now additional payment by them.
What does this mean? It means that as the payments that you were told were going to provide you with medical care get too small for Doctors and Hospitals to make a living and pay off their own huge debts, they will chose to not accept patients who are on Medicare. And Insurance Companies who you have paid for ancillary services to avoid any additional payments for gaps in coverage will adjust their coverages to match that which the government has dictated.
The result is that the Democrat plan will also have some people...maybe people who are not yet as old as granny...pushed off of the proverbial coverage cliff. The only difference is that Obamacare will blame the Insurance companies, the doctors and the hospitals and claim innocence of any contributory involvement.
This is very attractive to all politicians for whom results are not nearly as important as avoidance of blame. It is also attractive to a lot of voters who embrace the concept of victim-hood and also value the concept of taking a chance of failure if that failure will ultimately be able to be blamed on someone else.
The Ryan plan acknowledge that there is no certainty of total coverage, but insures that the value that you pay into the program will come back to you...and attempts to put into individuals' hands the power to maximize the economic power that those funds represent. Yes...it does put the responsibility of using those funds in an intelligent way on the States and the Individual. That means that you have the power of achieving great success or abysmal failure. Amazing concept, isn't it: Freedom of Choice is NOT Freedom from Consequences...good, ...or bad. But there is a certain rush of excitement there...or is it the breath of FREEDOM. You decide.
(Oh...and for you non-believers...currently, your Medicare premiums over the years total about $57,000 while the medical benefits that you use total in excess of $158,000. In a few years those numbers will be near or above $80,000 and $230,000 respectively. Medicare IS broke...and you need to accept that.)
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Is there a "Work Ethic" in today's America?
Was talking with friends recently and the subject turned to motivation to work and just what constituted and supported a work ethic, particularly in today's America. What follows is my shot at identifying and evaluating it.
There are two major elements to the maintenance of any semblance of a "work ethic": one is Internal, and the others are external. Internal motivation is essentially DNA and the way you were raised. There can be modifications in the intensity but rarely are there great changes in the internal elements. External, however are a different story.
External motivation is a combination of Fear and Praise coming from those around us, and our immediate superior in the workplace as the major element. The fear of being fired, the praise and advancement from working hard all affect future and ongoing motivation. And it is essential to factor in the need for health care and funds on which to live in retirement.
Unfortunately, with the very first Social Security program, followed by Medicare and Medicaid, the Fear factor has been all but eliminated as an external motivator. I remember my parents' mortal fear of not being able to put aside enough to cover costs when they could no longer work (and they never ever considered retirement...they were worried about failing health and strength, no going to the beach or the golf course). Social Security make that almost go away for most people. Maybe you couldn't live as well, but you were not going to starve. The need to save every dollar went away, and the need to work as hard for as long as you could manage also went away.
And all generations since mine have seen government step in and remove the consequences of NOT working hard. Just look at this past two years: Bought a house you couldn't afford? No problem, the government will step in and stop the nasty bank from trying to make you live up to your obligations. No Job? No problem, the government will provide you with a paid 2 1/2 year quiet time before you have to take whatever is available in order not to starve or live on the street. Thought you would be healthy forever and didn't buy any health coverage? No problem...the government will provide coverage.
What earthly reason is there to have a work ethic? It only puts you in the class that the President insults and you get to pay for everybody else's perks.
Work ethic indeed. I am surprised that it even remains in the dictionary.
There are two major elements to the maintenance of any semblance of a "work ethic": one is Internal, and the others are external. Internal motivation is essentially DNA and the way you were raised. There can be modifications in the intensity but rarely are there great changes in the internal elements. External, however are a different story.
External motivation is a combination of Fear and Praise coming from those around us, and our immediate superior in the workplace as the major element. The fear of being fired, the praise and advancement from working hard all affect future and ongoing motivation. And it is essential to factor in the need for health care and funds on which to live in retirement.
Unfortunately, with the very first Social Security program, followed by Medicare and Medicaid, the Fear factor has been all but eliminated as an external motivator. I remember my parents' mortal fear of not being able to put aside enough to cover costs when they could no longer work (and they never ever considered retirement...they were worried about failing health and strength, no going to the beach or the golf course). Social Security make that almost go away for most people. Maybe you couldn't live as well, but you were not going to starve. The need to save every dollar went away, and the need to work as hard for as long as you could manage also went away.
And all generations since mine have seen government step in and remove the consequences of NOT working hard. Just look at this past two years: Bought a house you couldn't afford? No problem, the government will step in and stop the nasty bank from trying to make you live up to your obligations. No Job? No problem, the government will provide you with a paid 2 1/2 year quiet time before you have to take whatever is available in order not to starve or live on the street. Thought you would be healthy forever and didn't buy any health coverage? No problem...the government will provide coverage.
What earthly reason is there to have a work ethic? It only puts you in the class that the President insults and you get to pay for everybody else's perks.
Work ethic indeed. I am surprised that it even remains in the dictionary.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Fewer Americans WANT to work...at all
Speaking at a little-noted event at the University of Southern California's Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, Mr. Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O. (Congressional Budget Office), a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that produces some of the most objective, "fair", and non-politicized date that we receive from our government, stated that, in some cases, Americans will choose not to work, because their needs for healthcare will be provided by the enhanced Medicaid Funding that is provided for in the Obamacare Law. This assessment of Obamacare by Mr. Elmendorf coincides with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's remarks last May, when she insisted that Obamacare would allow "artists" to "quit their day job" and pursue their art, free from the constraints of having to provide for one's self, because the government would now take care of artists' healthcare benefits.
Is this a problem? Long-term, it will be disastrous. Humanity takes the path of least resistance and makes decisions based on the pain-pleasure principle: on the pain side, we make the decision that reduces pain; on the pleasure side, we make the decision that increases our pleasure. Of course this is complicated a bit by the fact that different people define those terms differently and that any one person on different days will define the terms a bit differently also, but...details...
It has been suggested that 15-30% of people will always do the "right" thing: they will obey the laws as they exist, they will strive to work hard and be fair to others just because they have been raised to believe that "it is the right thing to do." Likewise, it has been argued that there are 10-15% of the population that will do what they want to do without regard to laws, training or "rightness." These are what we refer to as the criminal elements of our society that cannot be "rehabilitated" because punishment and reward outside their definition has no effect.
That leaves the vast majority (between 55% and 76%) of our population who's behavior IS responsive to our laws, our moral attitudes and our perception and response to the pain and pleasure in our lives.
What does this have to do with Obamacare?
This is one more unearned reward for people. It is another entitlement. It is one less reason for contributing to society. And, for those who work hard to get ahead and achieve peace of mind, it is one more thing that unfairly is given to others who haven't worked for it.
No matter what your point of view may be with regard to the economics of Obamacare, the only way the costs can be made even remotely reasonable to each of us is if the greatest number work to contribute toward the costs. If that number falls, the burden on those of us working becomes greater and greater, decreasing the benefit to us while giving a free benefit to others.
Human nature operating on that vast middle of our population is going to decrease the contributors to the costs. At first the decrease will be quite small. But, as the realization sets in that there is increased pain from having to pay for others and no decrease in coverage (pleasure) from NOT contributing, there will develop a tsunami of those no longer bothering to work and pay for this benefit, leading to a total collapse of the system.
This has always been the weakness of Socialist programs: the inherent self-interest to work and earn is destroyed by providing benefits as entitlements. This is a disincentive to produce, which means less worth is produced and removes the fund from which Progressive-Liberal-Socialists expect to redistribute in accordance with their elite points-of-view.
This legislation expects to avoid this disaster by passing a law mandating contribution to Healthcare costs. But there are two problems, one legal and the other human nature. Legally, the Supreme Court of the United States could well find that mandating that a citizen buy something for no other reason that being alive is unconstitutional. On the human nature side, the government cannot make you pay something if you earn nothing...if more and more people figure that welfare is sufficient when it also includes coverage for illness and accidents and decide not to work but to live off the government dole, it will ultimately bring down the government. Either it will collapse monetarily, or be removed through another revolution. Either way...it will fail.
What is amazing is that the smartest people in the world (Congress and the President) cannot see and/or understand this.
Is this a problem? Long-term, it will be disastrous. Humanity takes the path of least resistance and makes decisions based on the pain-pleasure principle: on the pain side, we make the decision that reduces pain; on the pleasure side, we make the decision that increases our pleasure. Of course this is complicated a bit by the fact that different people define those terms differently and that any one person on different days will define the terms a bit differently also, but...details...
It has been suggested that 15-30% of people will always do the "right" thing: they will obey the laws as they exist, they will strive to work hard and be fair to others just because they have been raised to believe that "it is the right thing to do." Likewise, it has been argued that there are 10-15% of the population that will do what they want to do without regard to laws, training or "rightness." These are what we refer to as the criminal elements of our society that cannot be "rehabilitated" because punishment and reward outside their definition has no effect.
That leaves the vast majority (between 55% and 76%) of our population who's behavior IS responsive to our laws, our moral attitudes and our perception and response to the pain and pleasure in our lives.
What does this have to do with Obamacare?
This is one more unearned reward for people. It is another entitlement. It is one less reason for contributing to society. And, for those who work hard to get ahead and achieve peace of mind, it is one more thing that unfairly is given to others who haven't worked for it.
No matter what your point of view may be with regard to the economics of Obamacare, the only way the costs can be made even remotely reasonable to each of us is if the greatest number work to contribute toward the costs. If that number falls, the burden on those of us working becomes greater and greater, decreasing the benefit to us while giving a free benefit to others.
Human nature operating on that vast middle of our population is going to decrease the contributors to the costs. At first the decrease will be quite small. But, as the realization sets in that there is increased pain from having to pay for others and no decrease in coverage (pleasure) from NOT contributing, there will develop a tsunami of those no longer bothering to work and pay for this benefit, leading to a total collapse of the system.
This has always been the weakness of Socialist programs: the inherent self-interest to work and earn is destroyed by providing benefits as entitlements. This is a disincentive to produce, which means less worth is produced and removes the fund from which Progressive-Liberal-Socialists expect to redistribute in accordance with their elite points-of-view.
This legislation expects to avoid this disaster by passing a law mandating contribution to Healthcare costs. But there are two problems, one legal and the other human nature. Legally, the Supreme Court of the United States could well find that mandating that a citizen buy something for no other reason that being alive is unconstitutional. On the human nature side, the government cannot make you pay something if you earn nothing...if more and more people figure that welfare is sufficient when it also includes coverage for illness and accidents and decide not to work but to live off the government dole, it will ultimately bring down the government. Either it will collapse monetarily, or be removed through another revolution. Either way...it will fail.
What is amazing is that the smartest people in the world (Congress and the President) cannot see and/or understand this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)