Ann Coulter's Digestible Partisan-ism and Why RomneyCare Matters

     I can appreciate why, after 116 days of Constitutional debates, many of the Founder’s were hesitant to entertain further discussion propelled by the Bill of Rights. They were, after all, mentally and emotionally exhausted by the process, and I am guessing many of them could simply not take it anymore.

     This has nothing to do with my blog-editorial-analysis assignment, except for the fact that the authors of our text have repeatedly emphasized the detrimental effect hate mongering in the media has on public involvement. Generally it turns people off, increasing public cynicism and lending itself towards individual apathy in the political process.

     I can see how that would be. I haven’t spent much time reading political blogs, but I did last night- 2 ½ hours, in fact. That’s how long it took me to find Ann Coulter’s piece. It was the first I could read without my blood boiling. Had I known reading both ends of political blogs was so emotionally harrowing, I would have come better prepared. Nonetheless, despite the partisan venom, I have endured the process and - like the fruits of our Founder’s stamina - have a much greater appreciation for the complexities surrounding the central theme in public debate these days: healthcare reform.

      Ms. Coulter’s piece didn’t just catch my attention because it was less provoking; she made some points regarding Romneycare, and mandated healthcare in general, that aren’t altogether popular. That her points are worth considering and should be part of our public debate is evidenced by the extensive and controversial information I found in response to her claims.

     She seems to be speaking to the conservative right when she suggests that Mitt Romney’s effort in addressing healthcare reform in Massachusetts was constitutional and in accordance with free market principles. Though the names are synonymous, federally mandated Obamacare is not the same.

Yet I wonder whether this is really the case? Technically it is true that the Constitution prohibits certain powers from Congress, and mandated healthcare is one of them. But ideologically does that fact alone entitle the states the right to compel citizens to be healthcare-responsible in the name of preventing huge healthcare expenditures by the state that come about when we are not? Apparently yes: seatbelt laws, motor vehicle restrictions, hazardous waste disposal are all state mandated. I suppose the answer to these questions comes about as laws are passed and implemented. The proof comes in the pudding, so to speak.

     Coulter points out that Romney’s healthcare cause was in response to the huge influx of uninsured free riders burdening states’ budgets. Due to an unfunded 1946 federal mandate, which required hospitals to provide free medical services to anyone in need, the free riders’ floodgate was opened wide and states were left do whatever they could to bail themselves out.

     According to Coulter, Governor Romney did just that, and mentions several prominent conservatives, who applauded his maneuver to require individually mandated private healthcare coverage of all Massachusett’s residents as a stroke of free-market genius. However, there is another school of thought that claims the free-rider issue is not the issue at all, that the number of uninsured who do not pay for their care is not detrimental to healthcare and could be more readily corrected by fee collectors who are more diligent.

     However, like Obamacare, both health plans would be mandated, which is the conservative hate-word and the reason why Republicans are up in arms over the issue. The difference is that Romney’s plan, on a state instead of a federal level, places healthcare into the hands of consumers who must buy but still have the right to choose what they buy. Thus Romney was speaking the golden word of economics,  that is by allowing competition to drive the market, the market thrives.  This, according to many conservative voices, is just what healthcare and America needs. I tend to agree. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom espouses the same principle and provides a sound argument for the free market-based thinking.

     In other articles, Coulter clearly espouses Romney’s legitimate success and Midas-touch expertise as a demonstration of his free market mastery and his ability to rally forces and negotiate compromise, especially in as antagonistic a state as liberal-dominant democratic Massachusetts.

     Her claim is that the Massachusetts legislature did two things that caused Romney’s plan to run amuck. First, by re establishing the threshold for receiving a subsidy they were, in essence, providing for the re distribution of wealth. Secondly, by adding multiple mandates which were on behalf of special interests, they essentially destroyed the no frills group-rate private plan that was a cornerstone to the affordability of Romneycare.

     Thus it was not Romney but the Massachusetts legislature that turned Romneycare into the predecessor of the “2000 page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt this country and destroy medical care”. Thus Coultur denounces them” daggum democrats”, but in a fashion that is much more conducive to intelligent discussion versus a fury of emotional and oftentimes outlandish claims present on many other blogs.

     Though I tend to turn a deaf ear to party politics, to a certain degree I agree that the outcome of the Romney plan was adversely affected by a democratic agenda. I think the evidence in that regard is plain and clear. I am also particularly appreciative of the support she gives Romney for not just doing “something”, but for the potential genius of his plan to reverse a the Kerry/Edwards socialistic trend in medicine as healthcare is freed from the free-rider burden and placed into the free market.

     However, the question regarding the real impact of the free rider detriment is still unanswered in my mind and is more complex than I have the ability to address at this time. Do I have the ability to trust Ms. Coulter’s expertise in this regard?  At this point I would have to say no. Though I appreciate her tone and many of her arguments, as a blog-consumer I’m much too skeptical to allow myself to develop a bias based on her opinion. Facts will have to be foraged before I can voice my opinion.

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/free-rider-a-justification-for-mandatory-medical-insurance-under-health-care-reform

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/02/three-cheers-for-ann-coulter.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n5/cpr29n5-1.html

http://reason.com/archives/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now

A Critique of "ObamaCare's Greatest Awakening" by Joe Rago

Wall Street Journal editorial board member Joe Rago provides readers with a case-in-point argument regarding the opportunistic nature of unchecked political control when personal choice is legislated. He believes this is the inherent problem in ObamaCare, and is likely to get worse unless repealed. His article, "ObamaCare’s Great Awakening", sites Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recent mandate requiring that almost all insurance companies pay for contraceptive and sterilization methods regardless of religious beliefs.

The fact that HHS has been given the authority, in the name of standardized health care, to ignore individual choice, especially those specifically protected by the First Amendment, implies a significant break in the moral aspect of public policy. It leaves up to administrative discretion what even the most liberal states have avoided, which is, simply stated, the right for the government to decide, via healthcare, what should be left to the discretion of the individual.

Mr. Rago points out that since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is lengthy and extremely ambiguous, it is left up to HHS to decide the logistical specifics of the act, which, in this case, prohibits out-of-pocket costs for birth control. His insight points to the infringement of personal liberty by those doing the regulating, because agency selections for the public are irrelevant to personal choice. He illustrates the subsequent enabling relationship that is formed between the regulators and the federal government. Together their abuse of fundamental personal liberties far exceeds anything ever justified within the restraints of the Constitution. Surely this does not represent the separation of power championed by our Constitution, or the checks and balances system necessary to prevent tyranny. That this situation has rightfully awakened the concern of all faiths and no faith alike indicates the across the board threat it poses to liberties and freedom nationwide.

The breadth of his argument, however, goes beyond the obvious infringement of First Amendment rights, which has become a wakeup call for many of the Catholic left who supported ObamaCare. That they were willing to overlook the obvious and severe pitfalls of legislated health care in order to win the liberal  prize of enforced equality, is indicative of the deceptive nature of the Obama beast, and serves as a voice of warning for what we can look forward to in 2013.As well are the pro-life Democrats who were, at one time, willing to speak out against ObamaCare, but instead accepted a dubious executive order compromise which would prevent subsidized abortions from federal funds.

His central concern is pointed at presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, but is really being addressed to all Americans and it is a point that he does not feel we cannot afford to miss.  That is that yes, the HHS ruling is an infringement on our religious freedom which rightfully should be protected.  However, dissected more deeply one appreciates the magnitude of the problem of a government which is given the authority to decide who can and should receive health benefits and who is required to pay for them. Because of its nature, a government will then exploit this power to dictate the outcomes of its own policies and interests, which is, in this case, that women’s health wins over religious concerns. This unchecked political power is exactly what our Constitution was designed to prevent.

Mr. Rago’s keen perception and astute political insight is consistent with the political philosophies of the Framers of the Constitution, and rings in particular harmony with the voice of James Madison who in the 51^st Federalist Paper made clear that because angels do not govern men it is necessary that we have internal and external mechanisms to keep governments in check.

Indeed, what Mr. Madison is referring to and Mr. Rago is talking about is that the interaction between HHS, the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare really isn’t about birth control or healthcare or insurance plans or even the First Amendment. What is really being achieved by such narrowly drawn mandates is the forcing of individuals out of the protection of the private sector and into the overreaching hand of government. This is the looming issue, and has been since the dawn of time, because historically there is a shortage of angels. 

That the Obama administration has rushed an excessively complex, lengthy and grossly under read document through Congress and effectively touted it as the government’s responsibility in equalizing health care is an exercise in deception and, without a repeal, I think Mr. Rago’s opinion accurately and clearly describes the dilemma America now faces. His logic precisely ties together the depth of the issue and is particularly significant as we the people consider the upcoming election and our participation in it.