08 July 2012
Obamacare ‘s Insurance Exchange Logic
There are those like Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute (cf. The New York Post, July 2, 2012) who profess that the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that give the states the option to refuse to set up healthcare insurance exchanges make it likely that Obamacare will result in higher cost healthcare for the country than what we currently have. It is obvious that those provisions were adopted by a Democrat-controlled Congress, however, to concede rights to the states, limiting federal government power unilaterally to impose the exchanges on the healthcare system. This was probably done because no one believed that any state government would refuse to set up an exchange when its result would be to allow the most risky of the potentially insured to obtain affordable coverage—after all, they also vote. Some have called this a form of political blackmail.
Of course, ideologues like Mr. Tanner find it difficult to lend credence to the fact that most people make decisions regarding the expense they incur to take care of their own and their loved-ones’ health on the basis of economic considerations rather than the dictates of dogma. It is perhaps a weakness of liberals to believe that voters will support politicians who act in their rational interest. It may be more realistic to believe that voters will elect politicians who command the financial resources and powers of persuasion needed to convince the public that a free market policy best serves the whole country’s health care needs.
It may require a strong public relations campaign to prevent a collapse of the Obamacare program for the lack of the state-instituted insurance exchanges that will allow the federal government to subsidize insurance rates and make them that truly affordable for everyone. Those subsidies will ideally be financed by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget in order to reduce its fiscal deficit. The growth of healthcare costs, too, will have to be brought under control. It’s a tough challenge—nobody seems at first to win--that is, except the taxpayer.
What’s more important? Is it the supposed military strength and strategic political position of the country internationally, or the health and welfare of its aging population? Is it the freedom of individuals to make choices permitted by their disparate abilities to earn an income or the fulfillment by members of a community of their collective responsibility for the general welfare? Are these goals mutually exclusive? It’s not a black and white, Manichean question; it’s only a matter of degree.
There are those like Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute (cf. The New York Post, July 2, 2012) who profess that the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that give the states the option to refuse to set up healthcare insurance exchanges make it likely that Obamacare will result in higher cost healthcare for the country than what we currently have. It is obvious that those provisions were adopted by a Democrat-controlled Congress, however, to concede rights to the states, limiting federal government power unilaterally to impose the exchanges on the healthcare system. This was probably done because no one believed that any state government would refuse to set up an exchange when its result would be to allow the most risky of the potentially insured to obtain affordable coverage—after all, they also vote. Some have called this a form of political blackmail.
Of course, ideologues like Mr. Tanner find it difficult to lend credence to the fact that most people make decisions regarding the expense they incur to take care of their own and their loved-ones’ health on the basis of economic considerations rather than the dictates of dogma. It is perhaps a weakness of liberals to believe that voters will support politicians who act in their rational interest. It may be more realistic to believe that voters will elect politicians who command the financial resources and powers of persuasion needed to convince the public that a free market policy best serves the whole country’s health care needs.
It may require a strong public relations campaign to prevent a collapse of the Obamacare program for the lack of the state-instituted insurance exchanges that will allow the federal government to subsidize insurance rates and make them that truly affordable for everyone. Those subsidies will ideally be financed by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget in order to reduce its fiscal deficit. The growth of healthcare costs, too, will have to be brought under control. It’s a tough challenge—nobody seems at first to win--that is, except the taxpayer.
What’s more important? Is it the supposed military strength and strategic political position of the country internationally, or the health and welfare of its aging population? Is it the freedom of individuals to make choices permitted by their disparate abilities to earn an income or the fulfillment by members of a community of their collective responsibility for the general welfare? Are these goals mutually exclusive? It’s not a black and white, Manichean question; it’s only a matter of degree.
Comments:
Post a Comment
