Riddle Me This

In the current version of H.R. 3200 as written, low-income families may be eligible for insurance premium subsidies in order to purchase health insurance. Interestingly, though, this subsidy is only available to those who purchase said insurance from a government-established “insurance exchange”, but not if the person wants to purchase said insurance from their employer:

The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created "insurance exchanges," but not if they get their insurance from their employer.

Why would that be? It seems to be that in order to offer individuals the maximum number of options for selecting their health insurance that all forms should be on the table. Aren’t freedom, choice, and affordability primary goals of this legislation? And if one of the tenets is to subsidize those that need it most, why are their options being limited?

What if someone meets the income criteria for eligibility for an insurance premium subsidy and determines for whatever reason that they would prefer their employer’s plan. Assuming one agrees with such a subsidy in the first place, why would it not apply?

Sounds to me like it is because the government knows best what is good for us. This isn’t choice at all. This is a “come hither” whispered into the ears of the working poor to come to the comfort of the government’s arms. What better way to solidify their constituency for generations than to hold them hostage through a government “exchange” service? They did it with welfare; they will do it with health care.

If the working poor are forced to go through an insurance “exchange service” for coverage and do so, what incentive does the employer have for offering any plan at all? Slowly but surely, insurance coverage, especially for small-to-medium-sized businesses, would disappear.

Instead of expanding options, the insurance exchange will eventually have control over all of them.

Another riddle in the current debate (of which there are many, but are too mind-numbing to deal with all at once) is, “What is the rush”? The MSM political beat and bloggers are characterizing the President’s speech tonight as a “game changer” and a “pivotal test”, and that if a compromise bill is in place this fall it will be a “big victory”.

Why this fall? What is the rush? The majority of the provisions of the current legislation do not take effect for years: isn’t there time to do it right instead of ramming it down the throat of an increasingly-wary country? The portrayal of any kind of legislation as being some kind of imminent emergency is suspicious. And the fact that the Democratic version attacks the entire system (uh, except perhaps tort reform or uh, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines) instead of incrementally instituting improvements is enough to make one shudder.

If General Motors was too big too fail, the House health care legislation is too big too succeed.

Sorry to be such a pain, but I have another inconvenient question: Why does Congress exempt itself from the “public option”?

Predictably, however, the Heller amendment was defeated, with all 21 committee Democrats voting against it. That vote is indicative of the reality that any bill requiring Congress to be covered by the same health care as the public has the proverbial snow ball in Hades' chances of being enacted.

Oh, and even though it is said by bill supporters that it does not cover the estimated 11 million illegal aliens in this country, a report by Congressional Research Service (prepared for members and committees of Congress) not only states that there are no enforcement measures to guarantee such a claim, but also makes the astounding conclusion that unauthorized aliens would be required to have health insurance (see page 4) ! Not that they would, as people who are here illegally by the very nature of their status would tend to stay under the radar, but it shows how the devil is in the details, and that the writers of this bill have no idea what slippery slopes they are entering upon (and have only a cursory knowledge of tax and immigration laws and the varying definitions between the two).

So many questions. Geez, I’m really sorry about that. I hate to be throwing bad mojo at all this hope and change, but peon that I am I think my questions are warranted and should not be scoffed at.

The knee-jerk reaction to these honest questions would be to dismiss me as a “tea-bagger” or some other equally jingoistic term. As Obama supporter Camille Paglia notes:

“…..is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it's positively pickled.”

Honest issues raised in the debate on healthcare reform are not being raised by some odd minority. Instead, they are being made by the real majority that has been awakened by the sheer arrogance of those members of Congress who have decided that they know what is best for us. We are not railing at the unknown; we are railing at the known. The majority of those opposing the House plan are informed and thoughtful. However, the more informed one is, the more afraid one becomes.

We know what we’re going to hear in the President’s speech tonight. We have questions, and all we will get platitudes and falsehoods.

The sleeping giant has awoken. The usually quiet rubes (have) decided that they want to be heard.