If it weren’t for the fact that yours and my pocketbook were impacted, the first week in May was comedy hour in our nations’ capitol. 

I remember a time when the Democrats in Congress controlled both houses and the Presidency and could never get their act together. The Democrats learned from their pettiness and placed people such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in leadership positions in Congress. It was a brilliant move politically. I may not like the result from my concept of good government, but I sure have to acknowledge they knew how to ram their agenda through the Congress. The classic example is Obama Care wherein Pelosi famously said “you have to pass the bill to see what is in it.” Pelosi’s comments were offensive to all who want the issues debated in a nonpartisan manner. On a raw politics model, give her and Harry Reid the credit. They had an agenda and they knew how to get the bill passed.

Fast forward seven years and the Republicans are in control. They have had seven years to develop and plan their alternative national health agenda. Republican Speaker Ryan had to pull the first bill because his Republican cohorts were in such disarray that the bill would not pass. Several weeks later Speaker Ryan pushes his new bill through and it passes on a squeaker vote. I have not done a detailed review of the Republican plan, but first impression is that it is all semantics. The Democrats gave subsidies on the front side. The Republican are giving tax credits on the back side.  Political pundits are calling the Republican bill Obama Care Light and it is difficult to find fault with that assessment. 

From a political science point of view the issue of national health insurance was decided when Pelosi and Reid rammed the Affordable Care Act through Congress fully acknowledging that it was a flawed bill. The funding aspect of the bill guaranteed failure in financial terms. The appeal of universal coverage was and is greater than the fear of the economics of the situation. Both Republicans and Democrats are now fully supportive of health care that requires insurance carriers to cover preexisting conditions. The concept is noble. The economics mandate (I like the term mandate in this discussion.) failure. Under the ACA insurance companies are required to provide coverage for all.  Insurance companies are in business to make money. If costs are increased, preexisting conditions, then there are only two ways to maintain viability. You can increase premiums or you can stop selling the product. That failure is evidenced by Americans willing to pay fines because that is cheaper than paying the insurance premiums and insurance companies declining to sell health insurance.

Just for a moment remove from your thoughts the morality of treating preexisting conditions and consider the following analogy. You go to the grocery store to buy a dozen orange that are already bagged. You can readily see that two of the oranges have mold on them and three more are mushy. Would you buy that bag of oranges? I doubt it. That is exactly what the government is doing when they require an insurance company to accept all applicants for its policies.

I am neither an economist nor a medical expert in this matter, but I do not see how either the Affordable Care Act or the proposed Republican health plan can survive. I believe both plans will implode from the weight of providing mandated services.

I do believe I am a political pragmatist. Public entitlements, once enacted into law, are extremely difficult to take away. Simply look at food stamps, public housing, farm subsidies. I am not saying that these programs are wrong, only that they are now the law and to eradicate or change them is a very difficult process. The public wants the programs and we, as taxpayers, pay for them.

I view national health care in the same light. Most of the Western World has enacted national health care. The issue of preexisting conditions has made a political statement that is not going away. I have serious reservations about nationalized healthcare being the best model for the consumer, but I must acknowledge political reality. The American public has voiced its demand for some form of guaranteed health coverage.

I fear truly socialized medical care as the end result will be rationed care and no incentive to provide quality care and research. What then?

I am inclined to suggest a single payer for basic care, paid for by our tax dollars. Then using the current Medicare model allowing each individual to purchase a supplement or HMO policy that provides extended coverage. I don’t know what will come of this debacle over health care. Both Washington and Springfield have developed a climate that restricts open debate and conciliation.  Both parties are seeking political power for themselves and the common people will pay for the fight.

PLEASE NOTE: Mother’s day is Sunday. Flowers, dinner are fine, but telling Mom thanks is what most Mom’s would love to hear most of all from their kids.