The socialized medicine gambit is back

I was reading FT.com (you will see the British viewpoint) and came across something almost sounding like a discussion of substance regarding what Mr. Obama would see as a medical plan. I will read it over carefully, after shaking my head a few times trying to figure out how the plan would look. It seems, on first blush, that for the same cost of Hillary's socialized medicine, this plan has a myriad of levels of protection, coverage, and opting out (yeah, right.)

Let me just put the article here and let you work on it.

As a pointless exercise, let me point out the Constitution does not provide for a national health plan and all powers not enumerated are reserved to the states. Just thought I would throw in our history. We seem to prefer just making up laws lately, like a king would. Only now, the king pretends to be the voice of the people, those who aren't stupid or in need reeducation.

Here find a socialized medicine masked in the skin of the current mess. At least Hillary was honest.

Obama wants ban on risk-based pricing

By Krishna Guha in Washington

Published: July 6 2008 23:37 | Last updated: July 6 2008 23:37

A Barack Obama administration would seek to ban risk-based pricing on all individual health insurance plans to stop companies cherry-picking healthy customers, a senior adviser has said.

David Cutler, a Harvard professor who helped to draft the health plan for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said: “Under our plan you cannot be priced higher because you are sick.”

(Me - Sounds good, but what are we talking about? I can sell insurance that is not insurance? This is a quandry)

Insurance companies usually charge standard group rates to corporate scheme members but individuals have to pay different premiums, or not have some conditions covered at all, depending on their risk profile.

Mr Cutler said an Obama administration would consider automatically enrolling people in approved health insurance plans unless they chose to opt out.

He declined to say how much tax credits to help low- and middle-income earners buy insurance would cost. However, he suggested it might not be radically different from the $110bn-$120bn (€71bn-€76.5bn, £55.4bn- £60.5bn) a year that Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama’s former rival for the nomination, said would be needed to achieve universal coverage.

Mr Obama also proposes setting up exchanges where people not covered by corporate health plans could buy plans that meet federal minimum standards and have low administrative costs.

Mr Cutler said that, for this to work, it would be ­necessary to ban risk-based pricing on all health plans, including those sold off exchange. (Gene - OK, socialism) Otherwise the exchange would become a “high-risk pool” dependent on public subsidies. Banning risk-based pricing could result in healthy people – in particular young people – refusing to buy insurance at a price that did not reflect their own risk profile. It could also reduce the incentive for people to take better care of their health. (A new social security? Sure, let us set up a trust fund to invade later.)

Mr Cutler said one partial solution could be to allow age-based premiums. He said that an Obama administration would also seek to find ways to build in incentives for healthy living.

He said that the Obama campaign, which proposes to automatically enrol people in 401(K) defined contribution pension plans unless they chose to opt out, would consider using this opt-out approach for health insurance too. “We are very much open to that,” he said. “That may very well be the best way to get people covered.”

However, Mr Cutler said that no decision had been made on an opt-out system for health and that there would be other options, such as a drive to “sign people up on their tax forms”.

John McCain, Mr Obama’s Republican opponent, has a fundamentally different approach.

Mr McCain wants to take the tax breaks available only for corporate health plans and redeploy the money as individual tax credits, while deregulating and increasing competition in the market for individual plans.

Well, it certainly is an area of clear distinction. I wonder if anyone will draw our attention to it. If you missed it, banning risk=based analysis is the end of insurance. It contradicts the very concept, the way "marriage" was redefine. Pretty clever way to avoid the issue, make it go away through redefining words. This plan, have no doubt, is back-door socialized medicine.

I am not sure either person can come up with a plan that works: Harvard socialism or new-improved same old. The current system is spectacular for those covered; it is also filled with greed and stupidity. The proposed Obama system is a bone being thrown to those who see a problem, can't pay for coverage, or are not working for a large company. This reminds me of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It is up to the current providers to fix their mess, or they will lose their position.

If we want a socialist plan, we should be like other countries and talk about it in the sunlight, not try to sneak it in. If we agree to adopt it, regardless of its quality and political control-of-the-people issues, fine, let us adopt an amendment, not create a giant mess by passing monstrous laws and a maze of regulation and figuring no one will be able to have it voided, because of its size. That is how the personal income tax still exists.

My initial reaction is always to steer clear of the elites and their plans for me, These people see the Constitution as an annoying hindrance, except when they can invoke it, like in distress over the War Powers Act, the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on. In those circumstances, the intent of the founders is suddenly of import and not just narrow advice for future generations, to be explained by sensitive, non-constructionist judges. Of course, these are new issues used to grab power, but we avoid that observation and listen carefully and seek to react to rambling arguments. That is our flaw. We take arguments at face value.

We politely ask for an explanation when an argument fails, such as we can't win in Iraq, and people just create a new target and their fans repeat the non-arguments as fact. This civility is our problem. As a Brooklyn Arab in a documentary said, screaming while burning a flag, "They have a flaw - freedom of speech." He was right, if we confuse freedom with lack of responsibility and the right to scream fire in a theater.

I suppose we are toast, as America, and we let it happen to ourselves by being nice to those dedicated to subversion of the ideals that made our tradition. Make no mistake, the world does not like the fact that our country works, especially without central planning. They only like us when we buy their stuff. Many want to react to their parochial sentiments, which is a demonstration of who they are.

There is a French saying that one can be too civilized. Now, I understand it. We are reliving the 1930s of Europe. Hitler, after all, had goods points, right? Boy, was he popular and promised sweeping change.

So let us abandon a legalistic approach to law and take on the mob approach and force people to do things the mob likes. Once we do that, though, the great experiment is over. As Franklin said, they have given us a republic, if we can keep it.