Health Insurance or a Sugar Daddy?

Full Disclosure: I am 100% opposed to the Affordable Care Act, but that does not mean that I am opposed to major healthcare reform.

I am writing this post fully acknowledging that our health care and health insurance industries are majorly flawed and that they are in need of drastic reform.  It's tragic that quality healthcare and health insurance is by and large a luxury of the middle and upper classes and that healthcare has become so unaffordable that uninsured, working class families can't even afford to take their children to routine doctor's visits or have a broken arm treated without risking their financial stability and livelihood. It's a grave problem and the problem needs a solution.

However, I think that the solution that has been proposed is not just problematic, but wholly wrong-headed and will prove to be detrimental to our entire healthcare system in the United States. I believe that it is completely possible to point out flaws and offer critiques of a system while also sympathizing, and empathizing, with those whose lives are complicated and sometimes destroyed by the deficiencies of our current system.

On to the discussion:

My problems with the Affordable Care Act are legion, but I am not going to discuss most of them here. Suffice it to say that I think that there are several parts of this law which are setting dangerous precedents for the future. One of the more troubling precedents is the way the U.S. government has placed regulations on private industry in such a way that undermines the entire business structure of that industry.

Let me explain:

The health insurance industry is an industry whose business model works because of risk. In this business relationship between the customer and the insurance company, one side is an optimist and the other is a pessimist.

I buy health insurance when I am healthy and I am betting that one day I am going to be sick. If catastrophe or sudden illness befalls me or my family, I want to know that I will have help when it matters. The insurance company is also betting on my health, but they are assuming that I will live a long, relatively healthy life.

Why does the insurance company pay for my unexpected surgery, because they entered into an agreement with me betting that I would never get sick. 

This is the way the industry works. Both sides are risking something: I may pay premiums for years and never need the insurance coverage that I have paid for, but I may also become deathly ill immediately after I sign up for coverage and the insurance company may have to pay out far more than I'll ever pay into the system with my premiums. Risk. It's what makes the insurance world go round.

Enter the Affordable Care Act:

One of the most touted aspects of the ACA is the requirement that insurance companies accept patients with pre-existing conditions. As we just saw, this new requirement undermines the structure upon which the insurance industry is built. There is no risk at all involved in the arrangement if a patient can sign up for health insurance after they've been diagnosed with a serious illness. You're not asking for insurance at that point, you're asking for a sugar daddy to pay your bills. The only reason insurance works is because insurers bet that you won't get in a car crash, that you won't die prematurely, that you won't be diagnosed with a serious illness, and for most of us, those events don't happen. However, we happily (I'm being generous) keep paying premiums and those premiums are paying for those insured who have had the diagnosis we all fear.

There is no risk involved from the customer's vantage point if they can apply for auto insurance and pay a premium only after they have rear-ended a garbage truck. They have not paid into the system. They never accepted any risk. Instead, they are expecting the insurance company to pay out for a new car. Again, that's not insurance, that's a sugar daddy.

This problem is further compounded by the regulation that forbids insurance companies to charge patients with pre-existing conditions higher premiums than they do for individuals who are and have been healthy. Insurance companies are businesses that are out to make a profit. In order for them to take on this new financial burden, insurance premiums must go up, and they must go up substantially.

Final Thoughts:

First, this requirement in no way solves the fundamental problem of health care and health insurance: that it is too expensive for average and low income families to afford. Instead, the requirement that insurance companies accept previously uninsured individuals with pre-existing conditions while not charging them higher premiums, will only drive up the cost of insurance for all.

Secondly, I believe that we have set a dangerous precedent. We have allowed the government to pass a law that fundamentally undermines the business structure of a private industry. There is no precedent for this type of action. If the government wants to argue that the health insurance industry provides a necessary service and therefore needs to fall under more stringent government regulation, that's one thing. Public utilities are subject to heavy government regulation that limits the rate of profit those companies can earn in order to control costs, but that is not what has happened here. Instead, the government has regulated the health insurance industry in such a way that it undermines its basic ability to derive a profit and provide a product at a reasonable rate.

Finally, our previous healthcare system failed many people. It failed people who were sick and laid off from their jobs, thereby losing their employer provided health insurance. It failed people who were low-income who couldn't afford to take their child to the doctor, much less afford a $500/month insurance premium. I am not functioning under the illusion that all uninsured people with pre-existing conditions chose to be uninsured. However, I am suggesting that there must be a way to provide for these individuals without potentially dismantling a private industry. I've linked to a United Liberty article below. I don't believe that it has all of the answers, but I do believe that it is an important start.

Sources and Further Reading:

Millennials are Opting Out of Obamacare Because Its Not Insurance- Forbes
Does Obamacare Reduce Costs for People With Pre-Existing Conditions?- Voices of San Diego
Replacing Obamacare: Republican Answers to Pre-Existing Conditions- United Liberty
Fixing Pre-Existing Conditions Without Obamacare- Ohio Liberty Coalition

Charles Taylor, The ICC, and Why Syria Still Matters

From 1997-2002, Sierra Leone was engaged in a brutal civil war. 50,000 people died during the 11-year conflict, but that statistic is not why Sierra Leone is remembered. 

On March 23, 1991, The Revolutionary United Front (RUF), supported by Liberian President Charles Taylor, attempted to overthrow Sierra Leone's established government. Throughout the ensuing conflict, there were widespread reports that the RUF recruited child soldiers, drugged their soldiers, and encouraged their soldiers to embark on a campaign designed to terrorize the citizens of Sierra Leone. This campaign of terror included rape, mutilation (known as "short sleeves" for amputations above the elbow or "long sleeves" for amputations above the wrist), and beheading. On April 26, 2012, Charles Taylor was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and aiding and abetting acts of terror. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison.

Last Thursday, (September 26) Charles Taylor lost his final appeal at the International Criminal Court

Charles Taylor

(ICC). Mr. Taylor's attorneys argued that a 50 year sentence for "aiding and abetting" was extreme. They argued that legal precedent differentiates between the person(s) who actually committed the crime and the individuals who lent support to the perpetrators. His attorneys argue that Mr. Taylor was not personally responsible for the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. Instead, he aided in the crimes inadvertently. Mr. Taylor provided supplies to the RUF that included vehicles and other supplies that are generally used in an non-offensive and non-criminal way. His attorneys suggest that he should not be held accountable for how the RUF chose to utilize his support.

The ICC disagreed and their ruling has important implications for the United States' role abroad. Instead of supporting Mr. Taylor's claims that "aiding and abetting" is an inferior crime, the ICC broadened the definition that term.

According to the Associated Press it is no longer required, "that to prove a leader has aided and abetted a crime, the assistance has to be specifically directed at committing a crime." Instead, if the aid provided was used for criminal purposes and if the lending country/individual understood that the aid was at risk for abuse, that leader can be tried and convicted for war crimes.

The Implications for Syria

Obviously this had broad implications for any country involving itself in the affairs and intrigues of other nations and it quite clearly has profound implications for the United States.

There is no "rebel faction" fighting in Syria. There are multiple rebel factions, some of whom are allied with Al Qaida. Americans may no longer be facing the immediate threat of our bombing the Syrians, but we are facing the reality that our government has now begun to arm certain rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. 

Will our resources be used appropriately? Have our national leaders considered the possibility that our well-intentioned aid could fall into the hands of rebels who desire to inflict terror upon the citizens of Syria? These are important questions, especially in light of Iran-Contra and the Fast and Furious scandal. Both the international community and the United States people are wary of U.S. involvement in foreign disputes and while the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the actions of U.S. leaders, a condemnation by an institution with the kind of prestige that the ICC carries, would do irreparable damage to our credibility abroad. Not to mention that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, if we arm soldiers who use our supplies for evil, there is a strong possibility that we are morally culpable for the crimes they perpetrate.

Sources:

U.S. Weapons Reaching Syrian Rebels
Liberia's Charles Taylor Loses Appeal Against War Crimes Conviction
Court Upholds 50 Years for Liberia's Taylor
Link to BBC World News Radio Report- 1st Story

An Ode to Abe and Speechmaking

Happy President's Day!

In honor of my favorite President, I am treating you to a few of my favorite Abe quotes. I am also attaching a video of Sam Waterston's rendition of Lincoln's Cooper-Union Address, which was arguing against the expansion of slavery into the territories. It is long, yes, but wonderful. I wish someone would re-enact the Lincoln-Douglass Debates. Sigh.

"Common looking people are the best in the world: that is the reason that Lord makes so many of them."- Letter to John Hay

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."- Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot." Remarks at the Monogahela House

"...that we here highly resolved that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863

"Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invoked His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes." Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment, March 17, 1865

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me." Speech on the Sub-Treasury, December 26, 1839

"My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To his care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell." Lincoln's Farewell Address at the Great Western Depot in Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861

The Wall of Separation

In the 1960 presidential election, Republican Richard Nixon was running against Democrat John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic and Nixon was a Quaker. The topic of religion became a hot button issue in light of Kennedy's Catholic faith. Many Americans were concerned that if Kennedy was elected, the foreign Pope would have undue influence on American politics. In response to this fear, Kennedy gave a speech before a group of Houston ministers arguing that:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

President Kennedy certainly made valid points during his speech. However, on the whole, Kennedy's speech reveals that he has misinterpreted the meaning of "the wall of separation."

Theologian of the Month: Augustine of Hippo

It's February and I don't know about you, but for me, February is a pretty depressing month. It is sandwiched between January, which holds abundant promise for the new year and March, which brings St. Patrick's Day and my birthday. So what does February have to offer? In my experience, not much, but today I am going to remedy that problem: I am introducing my Theologian of the Month! So without further delay, let me present St. Augustine....

Meet Jane Roe

On January 22, 1973 two landmark decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade granted access to abortion on demand up to the first trimester of pregnancy and then made abortion in the second and third trimesters contingent upon the health of the mother. The second decision handed down that day was Doe v. Bolton, which effectively allowed abortion up until birth by its incredibly broad definition of "health":

We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

The end result of these two decisions was that all women were now legally able to receive an abortion up until the moment of birth, if their doctor agreed that their physical, emotional, familial or psychological health were at stake. By now we all know the ramifications of these two decisions. In the past 39 years, approximately 50 million babies have been aborted. There are plenty of topics to delve into when discussing abortion, an endless supply of statistics to consider, but at the heart of this controversy were two women forever known as Jane Roe and Mary Doe. Their court cases have forever altered the moral landscape in the United States and likewise, they have forever altered the lives of these two women. Today I want to write about the story of Jane Roe, also known as Norma L. McCorvey.

39 Years and 50 Million Abortions Later: Things to Remember

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down their decision on the case Roe v. Wade. With a 7-2 decision in favor of the plaintiff, abortion on-demand was legalized in the United States. Even though the Supreme Court made a ruling on abortion almost 40 years ago, the debate still carries on. As I have read through articles written to commemorate the decision, I've been reminded of the philosophy driving the Pro-Choice movement.