On the Supreme Court's Decision Regarding 'Obamacare'

The Supreme Court decided today to uphold the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Partisan Republicans are wailing and gnashing their teeth. Partisan Democrats are exulting in their victory. Partisans on both sides of this issue are mistaken about many of the particulars. 

Partisan Republicans assume that ACA embodies their frightening image of what “socialized medicine” represents. They imagine long waits to receive care, the rationing of care, and the further encroachment of government into the healthcare decisions of ordinary Americans. They do not seem to realize that people who currently have employer-sponsored health insurance or Medicare will not see any difference whatsoever in the medical care that they receive. The worst-case scenario is that the increase in number of people seeking medical care will overburden doctors in the short run, but society is likely to adapt by drawing more young people into the medical profession. 

Partisan Democrats assume that ACA embodies their hopes for universal health care. They too are mistaken. It is ironic that Democrats, who have traditionally opposed efforts to privatize government services, are so enthusiastic about a law that solidifies private sector control over the business of insurance (as in, the process of collecting and disbursing money for healthcare-related expenses).

Angela Braly, one of the most influential women in the U.S. (source)

Where do Whigs stand on this issue? A Whig knows that the combination of money and politics creates endless opportunities for corruption. If Congress members were not corrupt, various provisions of ACA would never have been supported. Among these flagrant examples of corruption, consider (1) a law which forbids Congress from negotiating lower prices for pharmaceuticals, (2) the absence of a comprehensive list of approved costs for medical procedures, that private insurance companies would have to abide by just as Medicare does today, (3) the failure to limit administrative costs to between 3 and 5%, and (4) requiring that state-run exchanges purchase group insurance plans from for-profit insurers. 

And now that the individual mandate has been upheld, further occasions of corruption will arise. If someone will profit by skimping on the quality of the healthcare provided, he or she will do so. If a politician will receive campaign contributions from insurance companies, he or she will pass laws to benefit the insurance companies, which will inevitably result in higher healthcare costs for the consumer. Working class Americans who are forced to buy this insurance (or pay a penalty) will be giving their hard-earned money to the millionaire executives such as Angela Braly. The CEO of Wellpoint, she received over $13 million in compensation in 2010. Perhaps she was being rewarded for the decision to ask the state of California to accept a 37% increase in health insurance premiums.

It bears noting that Wellpoint stock has risen since the Supreme Court's decision; even though they lose money by being required to accept customers who have pre-existing medical conditions, this loss is more than compensated by a vast expansion of Medicaid, which Wellpoint administers (source). If it's good for Wall Street, is it good for Main Street?

July 1, 2012: Addendum. One of the events that precipitated the American colonists' revolt against the British Empire was the "Ministerial Plan." The king and his ministers wanted to compel Americans to buy tea from the East India Company, and that company, in turn, gave money to the king and his ministers. The Founders saw this as tyrannical. As I reflect on this history, my concerns regarding the ACA grow. As Americans, we should perhaps reconcile ourselves to the fact that our political leaders are corrupt, and given the fact of this corruption, otherwise laudable goals (e.g., universal health care) must be viewed with suspicion. It is preferable to rid a house of vermin before one moves into it.