Democrats, Dishonesty and Due Diligence...

Well, the Democrats on the House side of the hall have done it: there's been a bill passed to reform the US health system. Just that "reform" is an odd way to spell "ruin".

No time for due diligence and careful analysis: rammed through the House on a Saturday night without enough time for the public to even read the final bill and let their Representatives know what they think of the legislation. Of course, that was the goal.

First of all, from here:

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

What's wrong with this? First and foremost, it means that the insurance industry is now targeted for destruction. This legislation ignores the fundamental nature of the of the insurance industry: how consumers buy coverage to remove risks. Now that the insurance industry may not discriminate between risk groups, we have the removal of risky behavior from discrimination. This is heavily in keeping with the general tone of Democratic party political theory: socialization of all risky behavior, i.e. anyone can take whatever risks they want, society will pay. Or, more exactly, the taxpayers will pay, since this is where the money comes from.

Great idea: risk takers in the financial industry have had their mistakes paid for by the taxpayers, now risk takers in the health industry will have the same. Homosexual with frequent sexual partners and no protection? Not a problem, the US taxpayer will pay for your AIDS treatments and finance funding for treatment exploration, if not a cure. Drug user and mental health problems? Not a problem, the US taxpayer will pay for your recovery and then finance your next drug-induced psychotic episode.

How will the insurance companies react? Simple: when price discrimination in insurance is no longer permitted, then prices will rise so that everyone pays for the risky behavior (and extremely high costs) of a few.

This is a bi-partisan bill, but not the way the House Democrats wanted it:

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Ha! The opposition is bi-partisan, not the support. The 219 Democrats means also that the Democrats saw 38 of their own members, over 15%, reject the bill. One Republican along for the ride - who as a freshman member of the House also saw enormous pressure from the President himself on this - does not make this a bipartisan bill...

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

This is what will kill the industry: they will be crucified using anti-trust legislation. Plain and simple.

Now, conservative Democrats attached something that made it possible for them to support the bill: abortions are only permitted under certain conditions (incest, rape, mother's health), but how long does anyone think this will stand up either in a court of law or under the legislation pressures? The conservative Democrats can't take back their vote when the Senate version comes back to the House in Committee, meaning that the removal of this language is largely meaningless.

What is particularly dishonest about the bill is that many of the income categories aren't indexed to inflation: hence more and more folks not currently included in certain mandates will end up in those categories due to inflation. This means that this aspect of the bill thus passed in the House will in any case lead to higher taxes and higher costs.

What is further dishonest was the fact that La Pelosi and her minions pounded this out behind closed doors, despite President Obama's commitment to doing it out in the open.

Fundamentally, this is a deeply flawed Bill that will fail to reach what it purports to do, will enrich many who are heavy campaign contributors and which will reduce the quality of care.

Yep, sound about right for Chicago politics. The name "Chicago" comes from the Potawatomi "Chick-Agou" which means "Bad Smell", given to the area where Chicago was founded because of skunk cabbages growing in the bogs of the local river.

Seldem has a name come to mean exactly its origins...