Healthcare
While there is no doubt in my mind that this topic will come up over and over again in the near future, my first official post relates to one piece of the insanely overwhelming healthcare debate. What I find so interesting about this topic is there are so many different ideas that there is no prevailing conventional wisdom. When I ask people about this issue and the proposed legislation it seems there are at least two conventional wisdoms if not more. The ideological left views healthcare as a fundamental right that the government must provide to its citizens, while the right views healthcare as a right that cannot be taken away or infringed upon by the government. This to me is the most essential ideological debate going on in this enormous issue. All honest Liberals would prefer one single payer national healthcare program while the far right is in favor of decentralizing healthcare in favor of creating more competitive markets for healthcare. I think that both of these plans could reduce costs which is something that everyone is in favor of which is why that’s what they talk about since, who could be in favor of increasing costs for the same quality system. Answer? No one. But really people could care less ideologically about reducing costs except for Ron Paul who is having a conniption as I write this post. Honestly with the size of this deficit and involvement of the Fed I am shocked that Ron hasn’t duck tapped himself to the top of a large Midwestern cross to draw attention to the deficit. If the Fed gets anymore power I think he is going to lose it and exercise his second amendment rights against Uncle Ben Bernanke.
But I hugely digress. As with many debates the spin machines on both sides tend to find the most powerful rhetoric to energize their side while not alienating centrist voters. The President for example has said over and over again that if people like their healthcare they can keep it. The right on the other hand says that the government plan will take over almost immediately. Like in Many debates the truth is somewhere in the middle.
HR 3200 states
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
I know I had to read this a few times to understand it but it says that, while people are free to keep the coverage they have since it will be grandfathered in, if you lose your job you can’t have coverage like that anymore since the health insurance company can’t enroll you in that same coverage anymore. So unless you retain your healthcare coverage you will need to change to a plan that you may not want in the future. That’s just the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First of all, Im not sure you are characterizing the rights idealogy properly. In saying: "while the right views healthcare as a right that cannot be taken away or infringed upon by the government" you are saying that the right believes that health care is a right. Clearly they believe it is a privilege and the right they are advocating is choice (ah I love the irony in that). A right is defined as: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. or as A just or legal claim or title. Thus, conservatives clearly dont believe that health care is a right because rights are not purchased they are legitimate legal claims.
Secondly, I'm not sure your interpretation of the definitional section of the bill is correct. After sifting through the legalize it seems to me that the definition is simply referring to grandfathered health insurance as it pertains to people who drop off of plans. I believe that this definition thus pertains to the insurance companies ability to make a claim about grandfathered health insurance. I do not believe it concerns an individuals option to continue health insurance or an individuals choice of health care providers/ coverage as the only mentioned party in the definition is the health insurance issuer not individual purchasers of health insurance
While I admit this is the first definition that comes up on Google it doesn’t mean it is the only way people think about and view the word right. I would define a right as the sovereignty to act without the permission of others in so far as it does not violate the same rights of another. That’s another perfectly acceptable definition. I would also argue that your definition implies that governments have rights which I whole hardily reject. Government is just a social construction made by people with rights. If a government becomes oppressive it does not have the "Right" to exist. The people have the right to change it. Wikipedia says, There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified and I agree with that. Are Civil Rights the same as Natural rights? I would say there is a difference. The difference we have comes down to positive vs. negative rights both of which can be referred to as rights. Negative rights require inaction from others as my use of the words in my post imply.
As for the definitional section, by telling the insurers they cannot enroll people into the private coverage they would like after the implementation of the bill. So if people applied they would be rejected from that plan since under this section it would be illegal. So but the ensures not being able to enroll people, these people cannot get the healthcare they want. So HR3200 won’t take healthcare away but if you lose your job and otherwise would qualify to reapply and be enrolled the government is saying you can’t since its after Y1. If people would like further context this section is on page 16 of HR 3200.
I mean really we're getting into a seriously deep discussion about the definition or rights. If we want to do that we should probably explore the definition of definition. A definition is merely a snapshot of a societal view of a word at a given point in time. Thus arguing definition of symantics really brushes past the point I was making (red herring argument McNamee) which was that I highly doubt if you asked a conservative if health care was a right that they would answer yes. So far as the definition goes we really need the context how grandfathered health care is used in the bill before we can discuss what they mean by it in the definitions section.
Post a Comment