It’s the Individual Mandate, Stupid
It has always been clear to me that the most loathed part of healthcare reform for the right was the individual mandate. For too many, abortion was a smokescreen to gloss over the real objection, an objection with no real grounding in Catholic teaching. And when you see challenges to health care reform, they nearly always zero in on the individual mandate. This is the issue close to the heart of the particularly repulsive attorney general of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, who said the issue was “more about liberty than it is about health care”. And Missouri put a specific measure on the ballot targeting the individual mandate, which passed (although, as Michael Sean Winters notes, it passed with only 10 percent of the population).
What is especially sad is to see so many Catholics jumping on this misguided “liberty” bandwagon. Referencing Missouri, Catholic Key is ecstatic. Pewsitter headlines it. First Things declares that “Missouri Overwhelmingly Rejects Obamacare Mandatory Insurance Scheme” and that it “adds to the rising wind in favor of repeal and should aid candidates that make rejection of Obamacare a central plank of their campaign”. Referencing Virginia, the same outfit says that the flaw with the reform is “forcing private individuals to engage in it” [purchasing health insurance]. The conclusion: “This issue is bigger than Obamacare. It literally could determine whether the Founders’ concept of “limited government” will continue to endure.”
Let’s boil this down. Pretty much every health care expert argues that universal cost-effective care implies the twinning of some variant of the community rating with the individual mandate. In other words, if insurers are not to charge based on individual risk, they need a large pool of healthy people to make it work. Without that, everything falls apart.
This is a perfect example of solidarity in action – younger and healthier people are subsidizing older and sicker people, with the promise that they will be helped out in their time of need. Unfortunately, those who call themselves “conservative” do not see it that way. They see health care as a matter of individual responsibility. They raise liberty to idolatrous levels, and downplay the common good. As Jonathan Chait puts it, it is a “principled opposition to the idea the fortunate should be forced to subsidize the unfortunate” and that it reflects the “increasingly widespread belief that good health, like other forms of prosperity, is a matter of personal responsibility.” In other words, it’s the Calvinism, stupid.
In related news, Missouri voted to allow for a health care fairy to provide medical care to all the people that can’t afford or refuse to take insurance. Barring that debtor colonies will be established to allow people to work off their health care expenses. They will be denied cable TV and telephone service in order to quickly pay off their debts.
Yeah, let’s not “liberty” get in the way of the Obamanation.
You make the common mistake of conflating Catholic principals and Constitutional ones. Much that passes one test fails the other.
The individual mandate almost certainly does not pass Constitutional muster.
However, if it is in fact a moral imperative to have such a legislated individual mandate, then it is also a moral imperative to do it correctly and change the Constitution to include this mandate.
I am something of a fundamentalist when it comes to these things, but not an ideologue. If you want to change the system, then by all means do so in the correct and proper way. There is a rather straight forward, though difficult, mechanism for that built in. It doesn’t require bizarre legislative theories or novel judicial constructions to achieve a change in the nation’s constitution, it instead requires an amendment. That also allows an open an honest discussion and wide ranging debate on the issue, and in the end ensures at least some level of collective buy-in to whatever change is made, which makes it far more likely to actually work.
In any case, those who favor the individual mandate are essentially trying to have a universal health insurance system, but with all the costs placed on the individuals and all the benefits flowing to certain select interests. It is the continuing bizaro mix of statism and corporatism that seems to increasingly grip both parties, and it is in my opinion destructive of a just society, even if in this limited case such a policy might work (which I doubt, but anything is theoretically possible).
It is starting, It’s on its way to be repealed. God is Good!
Pro-Abortion Obama Health Care Bill Takes Major Hit, Proposition C Passes
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 4, 2010
Email RSS Print
Jefferson City, MO (LifeNews.com) — The pro-abortion health care bill President Barack Obama signed received a major blow on Tuesday from voters in Missouri. They voted overwhelmingly to reject a federal mandate to purchase health insurance — important because some of the plans in the program will pay for abortions with federal funds.
Proposition C passed by almost a 3-1 ratio as Show Me State residents voted to exempt Missouri from the insurance mandate in the new health care law.
Sen. Jane Cunningham, a Republican who was one of the prime sponsors of the measure, lauded the vote afterwards.
“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” she said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I’ve never seen anything like it. Citizens wanted their voices to be heard.”
Missouri was the first of four states seeking to opt out of the insurance purchase mandate portion of the health care law Obama pushed and the vote on Tuesday could prompt others to move forward.
“It’s like a domino, and Missouri is the first one to fall,” Cunningham said. “Missouri’s vote will greatly influence the debate in the other states.”
Proposition C is a non-binding referendum on ObamaCare that asked voters whether state law should be amended to “deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful health care services.”
Conservative writer Ed Morrissey of HotAir talked about the ramifications of the vote for the national health care debate.
“One meme had materialized over the last couple of weeks that ObamaCare had begun to get more popular with voters. Using a couple of carefully-selected media polls, the White House had started this claim and the press seemed willing to ignore the avalanche of other polling showing that solid majorities favor repeal of the overhaul and the candidates who argue for repeal,’ he explained.
“That meme died in Missouri, where almost three-quarters of the voters who came to the polls cast votes for a largely symbolic measure repudiating one of ObamaCare’s key provisions,’ he said.
Morrissey says the polling data showed 58 percent of Missouri residents support the repeal of the pro-abortion health care law and the results of Missouri’s referendum suggests that number may be larger.
“If anything, this shows that opposition to ObamaCare is growing, not receding, but that’s probably not what actually happened. While general-population and registered-voter samples may have seen a bit of softening to ObamaCare opposition, those aren’t the people turning out to vote this year,” he said.
“Prop C got more votes than the combined voting in both Senate primaries — which tells us something even more about the passion in the electorate,” he said. “Democrats may have to hit the panic button after seeing the results from this swing state. ObamaCare set fire to the electorate last year, and that may be an inferno for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in November..”
On Monday, a federal judge ruled that a Virginia-based lawsuit against the mandate should move forward, rejecting an attempt by the federal government to have the case thrown out on procedural grounds.
Buzz up!
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
Well, well, well. The truth is coming out, isn’t it? Has it ever been more obvious that right-wing liberals are using abortion as a ruse to hide their real concerns with this law? The article from Greg shows this ever so clearly.
Greg,
If you think that the individual mandate constitutes socialism as understood by the church, then you need to get out more. Only an American born, raised, and brainwashed by a Calvinist culture could possibly make such a claim. The church regards universal health care as a right. How do we get this? There is really only one way – community rating plus individual mandate. Once you get this, there are a numb of ways to do it according to societal preference – single payer like Canada or US Medicare, or private sector run like Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland – and the new American model. If you really think that subsidiarily precludes a role for government here, then it’s medic you really oppose, isn’t it?
But of course, subsidiarity is not about the size of government. It’s about human dignity, The real sin against subsidiarily in healthcare is large profit making insurance companies making callous decisions to deny or drop coverage solely based on the financial bottom line. Pius XI, the man who more than any provided the intellectual foundation for the doctrine of subsidiarity was actually more concerned with abuse of power by bug business and big finance than big government. But of course, those who idolize the market don’t want to think about this.
It’s time for Catholics in America to step away from the Calvinist culture and stop listening to the talking points of the liberal right – where, after all, does all the nonsense about socialism come from? Calling stuff like this socialism does a great injustice to the hundreds of millions who suffered under oppressive collectivization over the past century. It reveals a lack of familiarity with the entire corpus of Catholic social teaching and the economic aspects of Christian democracy. Remember, the pope even said that that something called ” democratic socialism” was in accord with Catholic teaching. Bishop Reinhold Marx, one of the experts in the economic aspects of social teaching, has said that a well run welfare state that includes unemployment benefits and universal health care is absolutely necessary.
SMF
I largely agree with you. Catholics can have a wide variety of reasons to oppose the Health Care Bill. It does not just have to be on abortion
Mr Winters who is lined above tries to put a nice spin on last nights vote but that vote was significant. It is true that a lot of the action was the GOP side. However one could not help notice in even DEM strong holds where it passed there was some notable amount of NO votes for it. Many it appears Democrat.
As to the purposes to be against this well we are seeing an unprecedented expansion of Federal Power here. I think a Catholic in very good faith could be alarmed at that and wonder what else this grant could be used for.
I have heard the argument well the Govt makes you buy auto insurance. Well that is very true. However I have a option of not having a car. The only option it appears I have as to this individual mandate and to get out of it is death. Quite something different and on top of that this is done by the FEDS on some questionable grants of power they are assuming
Liesite once again makes a fool of itself.
My universal experience has been that everyone protesting the coverage mandate already has health insurance. Those without are quite pleased with the legislation.
Second, from no standpoint can the case be made that there is an issue of “liberty” here that one should be able to decline insurance because when one needs health care they can shift costs to other through welfare and charity care. The case for liberty is an argument for the right to live without any access to health care. And remember, it is not an individual mandate but a family mandate.
So, Liesite, by opposing the family mandate is really advocating the liberty right of persons to decline needed health care even with the result of death. And not just for themselves but their minor children and other dependents. In other words, Liesite is saying Michael Schavio had every legal right to decline health care for his disabled wife.
I have heard the argument well the Govt makes you buy auto insurance. Well that is very true. However I have a option of not having a car. The only option it appears I have as to this individual mandate and to get out of it is death.
You do have the option of not having car to avoid auto insurance. You have control over driving a car.
You do not have the legal right to not take out auto insurance because you claim you will not be in a car accident, just as a claim you will not get sick wil free you from the family mandate in health insurance.
BTW, do you actually KNOW any free living libertarians who don’t have a car because they cannot stand the liberty restrictions of taking out insurance? Could you introduce me to them?
There is no right to drive a car. There is a right to health care. The only way that right can be provided effectively in modern society is by twinning community rating with the individual mandate. It’s a little thing called solidarity.
Perhaps there should be a provision for people to opt out of what they call “Obamacare” on the following terms. They are under no obligation to buy insurance coverage, but if they refuse, in the event they need medical care, they get absolutely no government assistance, direct or indirect. For example, if they opt out of the health care system and have no insurance, they must be refused treatment if they show up at the emergency room.
“BTW, do you actually KNOW any free living libertarians who don’t have a car because they cannot stand the liberty restrictions of taking out insurance? Could you introduce me to them?”
Uh no. Of course I am not a Libertarian either
“he only way that right can be provided effectively in modern society is by twinning community rating with the individual mandate. It’s a little thing called solidarity.”
So now this the is the ONLY way to engage the RIGHT to Healthcare. I have to think it is possible the American mind and more creative than that and there MIGHT be other soultions
We might need to hope so because if the Feds have Const problems as to the bill then another way will have to be found
Look, if you think this provides universal health care, you are not only mistaken, you are willfully self deluded.
The current legislation does not protect the right for universal access to health care. Instead it creates some limited right to insurance, and establishes penalties for those that choose not opt in to any of the available forms of insurance.
So, what does this law do?
It makes you buy something from someone else, or pay a large panalty to the government. What you buy may be of no use to you, and it certainly offers no guarantee of health care, merely of insurance of some limited sub-set of possible circumstances.
Does this law offer you anything in return?
It offers some portion of the population help in buying insurance, it offers some people lower rates, thats about it.
Does it hurt anyone?
Yes, lots of people. In many cases it will make healtcare dramatically more expensive while offering no benefit. The majority of people will see their health insurance bills increase but will not get any help. Further, the most affordable forms of health insurance will not be allowed under the new laws, because of new requirements about coverage details.
Does it limit liberty or solidarity?
Yes it does. You don’t have the option to self insure, either as an individual, family, or small community. Instead you have to buy a new government approved insurance policy from the big business interests that backed this plan.
Moral hazard is also an issue, it will still be cheaper for some people to pay the fine and then only buy insurance when it is needed.
Yet, as problematic as any of these things may be, it is not nearly as much of a problem as concerns over life. Issues of life come first, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues of liberty or justice involved, too.
I am sure there are some who used life as a talking point, but many who were concerned really did care about the life issue. In fact, at times it can even work the other way, arguments over justice and liberty can also be used to advance the cause of life at times.
So now this the is the ONLY way to engage the RIGHT to Healthcare. I have to think it is possible the American mind and more creative than that and there MIGHT be other soultions
No, it is not the only way. It is a means developed by Republicans in opposition to liberal proposals such as single payer, employer mandate, etc. However, as soon as the Democrats, in great deference to moderation, bi-partisanship and compromise, adopted this means, the GOP turned 180 degrees and opposed it.
smf,
can you tell me about YOUR and your family’s current health care insurance or lack thereof?
It is the only effective way. Alternatives exist, but they are not very good. For example, none of the GOP proposals do much to bring about a reduction in the uninsured. If you want to cover everybody and retain a private system and allow people to opt out, then you can do it – except that the required subsidies would soon bust the budget. And as the risk pool gets worse, more and more healthy will opt out, making the risk pool even worse…etc etc. What people forget is that the individual mandate is what makes it affordable.
Smf:
You buy health insurance, which gives you the right to health care when needed. There will be mandated coverage of basic care, and nobody can be denied based on being a poor risk. That’s nothing to sniff about.
You say: “majority of people will see their health insurance bills increase but will not get any help. Further, the most affordable forms of health insurance will not be allowed under the new laws, because of new requirements about coverage details.”
Evidence, please? I’ve been following the weeds of this debate from the beginning and the CBO (in line with every other credible authority) thinks that inusrance premiums will fall – not much for the vast majority in employer-based insurance, but quite a lot for those people in the individual market. How hard is it to understand that broader risk pools limits costs?