tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post7141641448941280358..comments2023-11-03T11:11:57.989+01:00Comments on Chronicles from the Front: 2 Issues Regarding Health Care: a query and its clarificationLazy Disciplehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05839410764981702225noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post-43381244548479279892009-11-13T04:24:46.930+01:002009-11-13T04:24:46.930+01:00I neglected to point out in the first comment that...I neglected to point out in the first comment that the chain of illogic is what is inherent in the bill as it stands and how it essentially creates the first four of my points, leading very logically to the latter, completely predictable issues. In fairness, I haven't delved into the bill, nor do I have any desire or time to do so, so I am only passing on information from relatively reliable news sources whom I suspect are more familiar with much of the contents of the current House bill.Kevin in Texasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37352287.post-14365739456602184302009-11-13T03:54:13.913+01:002009-11-13T03:54:13.913+01:00Good questions and some potential improvements amo...Good questions and some potential improvements among your suggestions, LD. <br /><br />One objection I've heard raised against at least the current House bill(on Catholic radio, actually) but never satisfactorily answered is formulated via the following chain of illogic:<br /><br />1) Private insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to anyone based on any pre-existing conditions (hypothetically good, if unworkable);<br />2) Everyone will be obliged under penalty of taxation and possibly jail to purchase health insurance, ostensibly to raise enough capital to allow private firms to cover all of those pre-existing condition claims mentioned in #1 above;<br />3) Those who choose NOT to purchase insurance will have their income docked a certain percentage as a penalty for non-compliance (notably, the penalty is predicted to be less expensive than buying insurance under the recent bill)<br />4) Insurance companies won't be able to enforce waiting periods for new policyholders before they are allowed to file claims; all of this leads logically to----<br />5) Since it's cheaper for people to pay the wage penalty than to buy insurance, and since private insurers will no longer be able to turn down applicants for pre-existing conditions nor enforce waiting periods before new people can file claims-----many people (most?) will wait until they become very sick with perhaps chronic illness to purchase insurance, sending premiums skyrocketing through the stratosphere for ALL policyholders; this will lead logically to----<br />6) private employers dropping health insurance coverage as a benefit because it's too expensive; this will lead to----<br />7) most people eventually jumping ship over to the public option offered by the government, which COULD lead to------<br />8) private health insurers going out of business completely, leaving only the government-funded and directed public option as the only health care option for Americans<br /><br />I can't imagine a rejoinder to any of these objections that would still leave the public option as a viable part of government-mandated health care reform. Then again, I'm no economist, but the above series of events seems quite logical to this lay person. <br /><br />So could the answer be found more easily in the Church's long-standing principle of subsidiarity, i.e., leaving most of these details to more local- or state-level entities to address? <br /><br />My layman's guess is a resounding "YES", and if the alternative were to come to pass, I could easily imagine massive government involvement in health care rationing (a rose by any other name...) and perhaps eventually something akin to the fabled "death panels" --another "rose" term that bears careful consideration in light of the history of socialized medicine in many countries.Kevin in Texasnoreply@blogger.com