There was a great deal of fuss over President Obama's health care plan when it was passed last year. Much of the debate was on how it would be paid for and who would be covered and whether private insurance would be phased out. What was not discussed were things like cutting the hours of part-time workers to ensure that they do not trigger certain provisions in the health care law. Yet that is what the state of Virginia is currently looking into and, while it does its research, is cutting the hours of its part-time work force to ensure that it does not trigger anything.
So, while the law was intended to help provide health coverage for all citizens, it is now inadvertently creating a situation whereby people are unable to earn their normal paychecks for fear it may end up costing them or the state more money. I am sure that many proponents of the legislation will argue that this was either unforeseen or the fault of the state of Virginia (though I find it hard to believe that Virginia is the only state that is currently working to figure it out) but that does little to help those workers who are now being punished by circumstances beyond their control. And, considering the glacial pace at which government typically works, I cannot imagine they will be having a solution anytime soon.
So, the intent was to help the underprivileged or underserved and yet the unintended consequence is actually harming them. This is one reason why all legislation should be carefully considered rather than rammed through regardless of possible (unforeseen) consequences. Somehow, I doubt that those who pass these laws (and are unaffected by them) will do anything to remedy the situation - at least not anytime soon.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Monday, February 11, 2013
Monday, March 22, 2010
Decisions
Some people have a very difficult time making decisions. Others like to delay them - sometimes indefinitely, it seems. And others simply hold their noses (figuratively) and plunge in and hope that their decisions work out for the best. But therein lies a key issue with decisions. It is not the decisions themselves that are the issue but the consequences (and the related fear of) that cause the problems for people trying to make decisions. A cascading series of "what ifs" leads to a paralytic state whereby it becomes impossible to make an otherwise simple decision. Frankly, the concern is not so much for the decision itself as it is that the decision-maker is the one ultimately held accountable for the decision.
Taken at a political level in view of the recent passage of the health care "reform" legislation by the US Congress, the decision about what to do by various representatives was shaped by the potential consequences of this single vote. Democrats were particularly vexed at having to make a decision that could potentially make or break their legislative careers. For those on the far left, they were unhappy with voting for something they felt did not go far enough and feared that their supporters would drop them for not following through on their convictions. For those more toward the middle, there was concern that independents would drop them due to a concern among a majority of voters about the bill itself and its corollary costs and enlarged government implications. While the end result - with the assistance of a great deal of executive encouragement (or strong-arming, depending upon one's point of view) - speaks for itself, the final results of their respective decisions will be known further down the line. But the hesitancy of many of the final supporters to commit to a decision earlier was because they worried about the consequences of such a decision. Their subsequent rationalizations aside, many of those who voted in favor (and even against) this legislation would have preferred not to have been forced into making this decision at all. The fact that the possibility of "deeming" the bill to have been passed without an up and down vote was even pondered by the Democratic Congressional leadership (though it was finally submitted to a formal vote) speaks to the fear that many had of being held accountable for their decisions.
But this goes far beyond the realm of politics. Some people hesitate to get married, fearing what may happen if it turns out they are their intended ultimately are not compatible and having to deal with those consequences. Conversely, married people may push off a decision on getting a divorce for similar reasons - namely, that making the decision to get married in the first place was a bad decision. Even more simply, why purchase the car now when you can put the decision off and perhaps get a better deal later? Or suffer if you fail to take advantage of a deal now and a better one fails to materialize later? Or, perhaps at its most simple level - should I eat that ice cream now? Because if I do, I need to know who I can blame later because it's not my fault that I was tempted... The people who sold me the ice cream should have known better and they're responsible for my poor decision.
Taken at a political level in view of the recent passage of the health care "reform" legislation by the US Congress, the decision about what to do by various representatives was shaped by the potential consequences of this single vote. Democrats were particularly vexed at having to make a decision that could potentially make or break their legislative careers. For those on the far left, they were unhappy with voting for something they felt did not go far enough and feared that their supporters would drop them for not following through on their convictions. For those more toward the middle, there was concern that independents would drop them due to a concern among a majority of voters about the bill itself and its corollary costs and enlarged government implications. While the end result - with the assistance of a great deal of executive encouragement (or strong-arming, depending upon one's point of view) - speaks for itself, the final results of their respective decisions will be known further down the line. But the hesitancy of many of the final supporters to commit to a decision earlier was because they worried about the consequences of such a decision. Their subsequent rationalizations aside, many of those who voted in favor (and even against) this legislation would have preferred not to have been forced into making this decision at all. The fact that the possibility of "deeming" the bill to have been passed without an up and down vote was even pondered by the Democratic Congressional leadership (though it was finally submitted to a formal vote) speaks to the fear that many had of being held accountable for their decisions.
But this goes far beyond the realm of politics. Some people hesitate to get married, fearing what may happen if it turns out they are their intended ultimately are not compatible and having to deal with those consequences. Conversely, married people may push off a decision on getting a divorce for similar reasons - namely, that making the decision to get married in the first place was a bad decision. Even more simply, why purchase the car now when you can put the decision off and perhaps get a better deal later? Or suffer if you fail to take advantage of a deal now and a better one fails to materialize later? Or, perhaps at its most simple level - should I eat that ice cream now? Because if I do, I need to know who I can blame later because it's not my fault that I was tempted... The people who sold me the ice cream should have known better and they're responsible for my poor decision.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Town Hall Protests
With the failure by Congress to pass legislation regarding changes to health care in the US, the congressional summer break has allowed for time for members of Congress to return to their respective districts and talk with their constituents about the proposed legislation. However, there has been an outbreak of dissension at various town halls conducted by some of the Democratic members of Congress. Perhaps dissension is putting it euphemistically. There has been vociferous opposition at those meetings to the proposed health care proposals being put forth by the Congress.
But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.
The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.
But it is not the health care debate that has generated headlines at these meetings but the turmoil resulting from them - and the possible causes of the turmoil. Namely, the charge by Democrats that the opposition is being organized and possibly even bused in by conservative lobbyists and other supporters. The charge itself is almost amusing in how it seems reminiscent of similar charges made against authoritarian regimes who claim popular support through similar measures of busing in supporters to demonstrations in their favor - except now it is the regime in power that is complaining about it from the opposition. The Republicans, in defense of the tactics being used by their supporters, claim that the opposition is to the administration's support and almost-unilateral push for changes to the health-care system and is entirely home-grown.
The end result is yet to be determined. In all likelihood, the Democrats will push through a package of changes (one man's "reform" is another man's unwanted or unnecessary change) for the health-care system. But the Republicans may have won the battle here by shifting the conversation away from a rational discussion of the issues to coverage of the meetings and the turmoil resulting from them. Whatever changes go through will please neither side (though it could be argued that the whole point of a good compromise is that both sides are equally unhappy) and likely will not resolve the issues relating to the problems in the health care system. But, so long as it is used as a political football that can be used to benefit a given party, expect nothing more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)