Democrats Say ... 'Take That!'
Just in case the emerging Republican ideology of massive deregulation (ne: libertarianism) has any impact on the impending political elections, the Democrats are on board with the recent rolling back of numerous hospital operations rules that are considered inefficient and obsolete. In fact, not only does this demonstrate that the Democrats can play the "government as a friend of business" hand, it could very well pave the way for acceptance of Obamacare.
For details on the changes, see: "US Moves To Cut Back Regulations on Hospitals" in the October 19, 2011 edition of the The New York Times. As the article points out: "Many of the new proposals deal with Medicare and Medicaid rules that have not been altered in decades. In general, the proposals do not affect the large number of rules issued under the new health care law, which set detailed standards for coverage offered by insurance companies and employers."
How does this housekeeping give credibility to Obamacare? It demonstrates that the Obama administration is trying to act responsibly and prudently -- that it is in touch with the needs of health care consumers and the health care delivery system. Not merely by ramming a 2,000-page act down our throats, but by demonstrating a commitment to the health care environment, and doing so in a proactive and intelligent way. If this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, than it is certainly one with credibility, which is a lot more than we can all say for the Affordable Care Act, which remains under fire largely because of the individual mandate (i.e., forced enrollment) issue. The latest interpretation of recent court rulings is that the mandate is, in fact, constitutional if the money is handed over at the time medical service is rendered -- meaning you can't force people to pay health insurance premiums in advance of any medical care. A Supreme Court ruling that holds that people could be forced to pay at the time of service could also be construed as permitting providers to deny care to those who cannot afford it. Opponents hope that a Supreme Court ruling against “pre-taxing” will result in an unraveled law given the potential for denying service at the point of care.
Stay tuned to tPF for further details.
For details on the changes, see: "US Moves To Cut Back Regulations on Hospitals" in the October 19, 2011 edition of the The New York Times. As the article points out: "Many of the new proposals deal with Medicare and Medicaid rules that have not been altered in decades. In general, the proposals do not affect the large number of rules issued under the new health care law, which set detailed standards for coverage offered by insurance companies and employers."
How does this housekeeping give credibility to Obamacare? It demonstrates that the Obama administration is trying to act responsibly and prudently -- that it is in touch with the needs of health care consumers and the health care delivery system. Not merely by ramming a 2,000-page act down our throats, but by demonstrating a commitment to the health care environment, and doing so in a proactive and intelligent way. If this is nothing more than a symbolic gesture, than it is certainly one with credibility, which is a lot more than we can all say for the Affordable Care Act, which remains under fire largely because of the individual mandate (i.e., forced enrollment) issue. The latest interpretation of recent court rulings is that the mandate is, in fact, constitutional if the money is handed over at the time medical service is rendered -- meaning you can't force people to pay health insurance premiums in advance of any medical care. A Supreme Court ruling that holds that people could be forced to pay at the time of service could also be construed as permitting providers to deny care to those who cannot afford it. Opponents hope that a Supreme Court ruling against “pre-taxing” will result in an unraveled law given the potential for denying service at the point of care.
Stay tuned to tPF for further details.
Good observations. We have seen what unfettered deregualtion of certain markets can create: financial and housing melt down. It is the role of government to maintain stability in the market place, especially when it comes to public goods that all of us must consume.
ReplyDelete