Which drives your opinion on health reform: The Golden Rule or the Law of Unintended Consequences? Vote today!!!
[polldaddy poll=1912376]
-
Sustainability
It’s at the heart of what we do. Our ability to build and sustain positive momentum is what fuels the growth of the organizations we serve and has propelled us to the forefront of the employee health and benefits business.
At Ovation Benefits, we deliver measurable reductions in the critical risk factors that drive poor health and high cost—the sustainable results you need to produce lower costs and better performance. For your business, and for your people.
Subscribe to our RSS feed to get updates every time there is new information posted.
Make An Informed Decision
James- you have hit on a couple of really HUGE and HUGELY CONTROVERSIAL points. I would say this: as to the moral and ethical obligation to provide health insurance-which is what the debate is really about–I have to ask the question at what cost? And who is paying the cost? Is it moral and ethical to reduce access for those of us that have coverage so that others may gain it? Is it moral and ethical to limit care–yes, ration care–for those who have coverage currently (i.e. meducare) n order to save the money needed to pay for the coverage for those who do not? And finally, is it moral or ethical to take the hard earned money of those who will be asked to pay for the cost to insure those without coverage? tough, tough questions.
As for your point about the ability to put through future legislative changes, i.e. to implement fixes later that address the unintended consequences, I agree with you in theory but judging from the incredible politicization and polarization around the issue, do we want to fight this fight year after year? It seems to me that you are making the case for a slower, more thoughtful and more incremental approach to reform. A top to bottom overhaul of the $2.5 trillion healthcare economy will have huge consequences for all of us, and many, many, many of them will be unintended.
I am hoping the President will take leadership of the issue next week in his address and suggest the more thoughtful, incremental approach…but I think that seems pretty unlikely given the political climate.
While there will undoubtedly be unintended negative consequences from government interference in the marketplace, there can be no doubt that the moral and ethical obligation of our nation supercedes that risk. This is a critical issue of social justice and equality of opportunity. It should not be delayed or derailed due to political or economic ideology. Remember that legislation can be modified – so if there are unintended consequences, they can be addressed through future legislative changes (to remove market disincentives, reduce bureaucracy, etc.)