We may all live in a great big global community, but in my Blog, it's my world.
Published on December 13, 2010 By terpfan1980 In Politics

I could insert a bad joke here about famous blind musical artists (and perhaps compound it by using the names of dead, blind musical artists) being able to see how we got the result that we got today in the Virginia court case against the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare reform package's requirement that everyone must buy health insurance.  That single component was pretty much guaranteed to be DOA once it got into the legal system.  Unconstitutional with a capital UN at  the beginning of (even though I didn't use one back there).

Seriously, it didn't take a constitutional law scholar to figure out that requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from private companies isn't not supportable under the constitution, nor should it be, despite protestations from the Democrats that passed such a hair-brained law to begin with.

I can still see a path that will accomplish the same goal, and will be, in my mind, the end result as the Obama healthcare package gets tweaked by the incoming GOP controlled House of Representatives (and likely passed by the Senata as well, when it's their turn to go back to the drawing board to fix the broken law).  We'll likely wind up with tax credits for anyone that has purchased an approved healthcare package for themselves and/or their family that gives us back enough credits to cover most if not all of the cost of a basic healthcare package.  The problem then will be finding a way to pay for those credits, which will likely wind up being done through taxing the Cadillac (high end) health care plans and/or raising taxes on sins and vices: alcohol, cigarettes, and perhaps even fast food and soft drinks.

In the end it'll basically be a wash in that most people will get healthcare coverage but they won't really get back that much money from the credits because the costs will be just as high as the credits.  For those that can't afford to buy coverage, the credits will result in a hand-out that should cover their costs for at least a basic package so everyone gets to feel good that we've covered as many citizen's health care needs as possible.

Since there would no longer be a REQUIREMENT to purchase insurance, but instead would be an incentive to buy insurance (so you can benefit from the tax credits), it would pass constitutional muster and wind up in the same desired result: most of the country's citizens covered for healthcare.

I'd be amazed if this isn't what we wind up with in the long run.  Certainly the Obama-care package will be "fixed" as more and more people are disillusioned with what it became.  Hopefully the results of the tweaking are something we can all be happy with for some time to come.


Comments
on Dec 14, 2010

First, you are wrong about the blind singer.  SCOTUS did not initially take down McCain Feingold, so there is no telling where this is going.

Second, I hope you are wrong about the solution.  The democrats would love it.  But the 2 flaws in the plan are - the extra money the government will spend on the system (you think we got big deficits now!!!!!!).

And the graft, corruption, greed and malfeasance that will go into determining "what" is a legitimate plan.  In other words, Steve Jobs gets only $1/year in income.  But he has a health plan that covers all medical 100%!  WooHoo!  yea, I can see that one flying.

We have already seen the problems with exceptions as any company or organization can get one if they give enough to the presidents election campaign.  No reason necessary.

No, the true solution is to scrap it.  It was not needed, it is detrimental and counter-productive and is doing the exact opposite of its intended purpose at the same time squandering trillions of dollars.  The only ones that like it are idiots and those getting rich off of it.

on Dec 14, 2010

In some ways I hope I'm wrong in my prediction, but I really don't think that will be the case.  In the end there are enough special interests and social do-gooders out there that so desperately want healthcare coverage for all that they'll find a way to make it happen and the way I've proposed seems to be the way that would be the most legal.

I'm not even so sure I'd say that it'll be that much Democrat love for the method I've suggested.  Republicans might fall all over themselves in being able to claim they gave tax credits (the equivalent of tax cuts) to citizens, even if there is a string attached in how you'd get the credits.  And lets not forget again the special interests -- i.e. big businesses -- that would be involved.  Health Insurers, Hospitals, Pharmaceutical Companies, Medical Equipment suppliers, etc.  All in line to collect more profits if more people are insured and use that insurance to get more health services.

There's really too much momentum and demand for everyone to be covered, or at least for as many people as possible to be covered for insurance.  In some ways it's not a bad goal as having more people covered for everyday health needs should mean more preventative care and earlier detection of problems that would lead to costly treatment later.  Catching issues earlier, rather than later, should lead to savings in the long run, but getting there will take quite a while.

You are likely correct in saying there'd be a lot of opportunities to corrupt the system in determining what is or isn't an acceptable plan and who should get the credits, but I still expect that there'll be a damned the torpedos type push to get something done.

on Dec 14, 2010

There's really too much momentum and demand for everyone to be covered

I think the 58% against would disagree with you.  But even if you are correct, it is clear that the current law is the wrong way all the way around.  it will cost a fortune (government and people) and not do what anyone wants it to do.

There is just so much renovation a house can take before you have to tear it down and start over again.

Meta
Views
» 157
Comments
» 3
Category
Sponsored Links