The reason why an individual mandate—to buy insurance unless
you have it from your employer or from the government already (Medicare,
Medicaid)—is part of the health care act is because the Obama administration
blinked. The government has full powers to levy taxes. Indeed the federal
government has been collecting money for Medicare and Medicaid since 1966. In
effect we’ve had a single-payer and centrally controlled health care system
since then (thus for 46 years), but only for selected groups. This is a
conceptually straight-forward approach. To get a workable national health care
system, all we’d have had to do was to extend Medicare to anyone who is not already
covered. In this country, however, there is a deep-seated traditional
resistance to centrally-managed anything. Therefore, feeling that resistance,
the Obama administration caved—and still
failed to get bipartisan support. In my simple black-and-white world, if you
can’t pass a proper national health care act—why then you walk. You say, like
Mrs. Clinton might have said a while back, “Well, I tried.” You can’t make the
horse drink.
The compromise then produces the controversy now. The
compromise was to “let the private sector do it”—but with a half-hearted attempt
to make everybody use the private
offering. The battle now is couched in the totally irrelevant context of
interstate commerce—and whether or not the government can compel anyone to buy—anything.
This the government may not be able
to do. But it certainly can tax. But the
votes simply aren’t there to solve the problem in a straight-forward manner—by
taxation.
Now conceptually I see no real difference between forcing me
to pay a tax on the one hand and forcing me to purchase health insurance on the
other. In either case I have to cough up the dollars. But if this is seen as
opening the door to government-mandated purchases in general, I’m not surprised that the Supreme Court seems
skittish; reader russell provides some of the Court’s misgivings in a comment
to the earlier post on this subject (link).
More realistically, an insurance-based approach is inferior
to a central-single-payer system. It costs a whole lot more. A national system
does not, per se, prohibit an insurance-based system to coexist with it. A
national system will always involve some rationing—and an overlay of
insurance-paid extra benefits will satisfy the rich.
It is for these reasons, needless to say, that you won’t
find much praise for the current act anywhere on LaMarotte. It is flawed in conception—and now it might fail in
detail. At best it will be upheld by a 5:4 vote. If it goes down, Medicare and
Medicaid may follow. After all a designated tax—designated for health care—may
in some future lawsuit be judged to be a mandate to buy something—which it
actually is.
No comments:
Post a Comment