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.
No comments:
Post a Comment