Healthcare Opus, part One

The new Time magazine came yesterday. Two articles stood out against the typical fare of how China is catching up to us and the book and movie reviews. The first was a guide to the changes in healthcare that we can expect to see rolling out in the coming months and years. The second, what I considered to be an alert about Andrew Breitbart and his series of conservative "Big" sites. I would be surprised if the juxtaposition of these articles was an accident.

For me, the guide to healthcare was an anxiously awaited full explanation of what has actually been debated so hotly in congress and has been such a bone of contention between Democrats and Republicans. It has been debate that, quite honestly, lost me a few turns back. I am glad there are those of you out there that held on for the ride in it's entirety. Be happy that you won't have to explain this new system to me now.

One thing I knew before all of this started. A national healthcare plan would be expensive. Not necessarily for government, not necessarily for insurance companies, but mainly for you and me. I view this cost as an acceptable part of being insured. I never expect insurance to be free. It's expensive no matter where it comes from, but much less so if it comes from a cooperative, which effectively is what we're talking about here. A giant, government-regulated cooperative. In a country that values it's freedom as much as we do, this definitely means trouble. Or does it?

Seems that as always, this depends on your perspective. The conservative argument has been that your insurance options under institutionalized healthcare would be limited, and ultimately more expensive. That the bill is a small business killer, due to the coverage that they would have to provide their employees. Overall, the tone has been that it's a plan that government is forcing down the throats of all Americans that is akin to the socialism of European nations. Okay, I can see how that might run contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers. However, we're a long way from the 18th century. A lot has changed with the addition of say, several hundred million people.

My experience with insurance companies has always been an exercise in compromise. It seems you always have to be willing to pay too much for not exactly the coverage that you need. If the government's new plan delivers as expected, not much would change. I would still face limitations and some expense, in the form of higher taxes and Medicare payroll deductions. But this time, at the least, I could not be denied coverage, and when it came time to take advantage of Medicare I wouldn't see gaps in the prescription drug benefit.

As the bill pertains to small businesses, my attitude is that it's about time that all employers provide some form of healthcare. Nothing says "my employees are disposable" more than not insuring them. It will be tough for some businesses to survive under the new law, but it should be recognized that the ones that fail probably weren't so healthy to begin with. I am willing to take some heat for saying this, but our companies should not be immune to the same laws that govern nature. Struggling enterprises should be allowed to fail. Be creative, layoff under-performers, suck it up. I thought clawing your way to the top was the American way.

Socialism? I think we all need to get a better handle on the structure of our government as-is. We live in a Socialist Republic already. We may not call it that, but that's exactly what it is. I would go so far as to call it a Corporate Socialist Republic. For most of you who have been willing to read this far this may seem obvious, but for the remaining few that don't believe, let me remind you of the huge corporate bailouts that happened not so long ago. Chrysler? General Motors? Lest we forget the banking industry? It should not seem so important that we are becoming anything like our European cousins.

Try this on for size:

"American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the Marxist putsch that the Democrat Party delivered in the form of the healthcare bill. Why wasn’t this made public before the vote? The numbers are staggering. It was revealed Friday that AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one-billion-dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America. The farm-equipment company Deere is looking at $150 million in new healthcare-related charges this quarter, and Caterpillar is facing $100 million.

Who do you think will pay for this? We will pay. According to Reuters, “Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.” Business is not something in the abstract, or the evil force the leftists and the communists deceptively smear it to be — business is work, business is people, it is jobs, it is production. When business pays, we pay. Jobs pay. Consumers pay.

And we will pay for more than that as well. Have you seen the commercials yet for people who have maxed out their credit cards, and have loans over ten thousand that they can’t pay back, urging them to apply for stimulus dollars? Are you one of those who played by the rules, worked hard, did the right thing? If so, you’re screwed. The man has you and your wallet and your kids’ wallet by the throat. Welcome to the era of the degenerate: they will be sucking your blood and your children’s blood and your children’s children’s blood for decades to come, or however long America lasts."

-by Pamela Geller, published on the site "Big Government," run by conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart

Scary right? This article contains exactly the form of rhetoric that is, in my opinion going to be the death knell for the Republican party in the coming years. Although this article comes from the far right extreme in political thinking, I have heard these sentiments uttered in more reserved circles. Truth be told, these outrageous "chicken little" proclamations are receiving their share of flak not only from leftists. What lies just below the surface of arguments like these is a deep well of fear-based ideology. I have a hard time understanding just how a completely static, unchanging government, with no new ideas could be a good thing for any nation. Change, and I use that word knowing the stigma attached to it at this point, is necessary in any and all healthy systems. Change invigorates. Change renews. Having said this, I also believe in a healthy dose of balancing conservatism, so that we are not, as a nation constantly firing from the hip.

Allow me to address a few points in the above article, before I stray too far from this topic. A little perspective about these numbers the author so casually tosses around. AT&T will take a one-billion dollar "hit" in the current quarter as a result of having to pay additional healthcare coverage? This is a small percentage of AT&T's quarterly revenue, which by the way, was up 25% to 30.87 billion dollars as a result of expanded cellular clientele. Not to mention, this cost could certainly be financed over a longer period than three months. John Deere? Their claimed 100 million loss would hardly make a dent in their revenues. This company earned 23.1 billion in 2009. There is a small truth in part of what the author says here. These costs, to some degree would be passed on to the worker. We should be sure to hold the companies accountable for their decisions on this front. It is not the fault of the healthcare bill if Mega-Conglomerate X decides to forward the additional expense to it's factory floor. Once again, the rhetoric favors big business, because "business is people" and that means jobs. But at what cost? When do we start saying to ourselves, business and corporations in particular are not serving those who serve them? What benefit is there in protecting them to the current degree that we do?

I think I speak for most moderate liberals and certainly anyone on the left of me by saying that I resent being labeled a supporter of the "degenerates" that will be sucking the lifeblood out of the rest of America's hard-working, fiscally responsible population. This is a prime example of how sensational media practices play upon the fears of conservatives. I wonder why anyone would think that I, as a liberal, would want to support freeloaders, suckling from the teat of federal and state tax revenues, any more than a conservative would. The cold, hard fact is that these folks who are not "playing by the rules" are already causing your insurance premiums to escalate, and causing insurance companies to clamp down ever-harder on payouts to honest types like ourselves. As I see it, you're going to pay whether it's as an individual, or out of a tax pool. The only difference being that the tax pool is regulated a hell of a lot more than your insurance provider, who can drop your benefit any time they like. So really, what's there to complain about? If you like your plan, and want to keep it, keep it, and shut up.