The Health Reform Dog and Pony Show has Shakespeare Turning in his Grave

The "health insurance reform debate" has been one heck of a dog and pony show. Solid Off-Broadway theater. Whoever supposed that the executives and directors of large corporations and their lobbyist employees could not succeed at theater were wrong! And yes!, purely fictional plays packed with lies can be successful to some extent!

William Shakespeare, who would not have dreamed of writing a play so packed with lies, may be turning in his grave right about now.

What Exactly is a Mandate?

A GUEST QUERY:

hamster August 27th, 2009 1:20 am
A lot of people on the left and the right complain about the possibility of a "mandate" whereby everybody would have to have insurance. That's not really very important. What's important is how the whole thing is set up. Profit taking and insurance company meddling in health care must be minimized (to the point you could drown them in a bathtub?).

Don't forget, HR676 is a mandate. So is Medicare.

No, HR 676 is NOT a mandate, and nor is Medicare.

A mandate is where a government uses it's power to command a lower level government or even individuals to pay for something or to perform an action. The concept is inherently very regressive and backward due to inherent inefficiency of downward commands where economies of scale are lost, and also because, in most mandates, the government in question is trying to accomplish something it is responsible for by using the resources of others.

Further, the mandating government is almost invariably, at least partly and usually largely, making financial demands irrespective of the true ability to pay of the ones ordered to pay. (Whereas by contrast a progressive tax system rates high by definition with respect to honoring the ability to pay principle.)

In other words, it's a cheap and anti-progressive shortcut move by the Government. It is also an implicit up front admission by the government that it is not economically and/or not politically competent to achieve the objective, even though it is ultimately responsible for the objective. This is obviously a disturbing revelation.

Here is an analogy. A mandate would be like I as a parent telling my 15 year old teenager "I order you to buy a basketball and a backboard/net so that you will spend more time on basketball and less time hanging around low lifes in the neighborhood. If you don't do so, you are grounded for three months." Versus if I buy the basketball and the backboard myself and then deduct some or all of the cost from the allowance. The latter way (me as the "government" buying it and setting it up) is the progressive way and the former way (the mandate) is the right wing or backward way.

Note that with mandates, there is no guarantee that the action wanted ever happens. Rather, the penalty scenario can easily occur.

[The above conversation was in response to this article.]

The Two Requirements for a Successful Health Care System

On the one hand this article is on point when it emphasizes the power and control held by the large private Corporations. And the details about WellPoint’s rich powers that be are nice because, for one thing, it is unusual to see it.

But on the other hand, this article is unrealistic when it claims that corporate power to dictate the law could be curtailed through the existing political channels. Unfortunately, the power of the large corporations has so far surpassed that of the government that, these days, the corporate executives and boards ARE the government, for all practical purposes. Obama is really just an executive/director "at large" of the large corporations, and a vestige of the previous and now defunct democracy of the US.

With regard to the health care system, several dozen countries have shown anyone with half a brain that there are two minimal requirements for any system that can work. As you will see immediately, the executives and directors in control of the US will not agree with either one of them.

There are two completely required beginning building blocks for a successful health care system and, for that matter, a successful economy. If you don't start with these, you won't be finishing with a successful system:

(1) Profit for all basic, fundamental and standard health insurance is strictly disallowed for any private companies that are allowed to provide that insurance. What basic, standard coverage is has to be carefully and in detail defined by health experts under Government supervision.

(2)The Government must provide a workable set of regulations, subsidies, and/or direct investment that prevent the cost of the health care itself from rising at rates substantially above the overall rate of inflation. This can be done in many, many different ways, including, for example, paying for the education of doctors and other health industry employees.

Again for emphasis, you either do BOTH (1) and (2) or else your health care system AND your economy are destined for severe underachievement and eventual collapse.

Despite the fact that the US economy is already partially collapsed, when the US economy will be completely collapsed can not be known. It could be in 20 years or it could possibly take as long as 120 years. If someone forced me to say, I'd make an educated guess that the US economic system will be defunct (with the dollar next to worthless and no longer the primary reserve and international settlement currency) in roughly 50 years.

At this point, the timing depends on how things develop in other countries. What is going to happen and when in other countries is obviously less predictable than what is going to happen in the country you are immersed in. China in particular is notorious for lack of transparency and relative unpredictability.

But if I am still alive when the US economy is completely collapsed, you can bet that I will not be shy about saying "I told you so, and you can check the Common Dreams archive to verify that I did!"