New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Tony Rubolotta
Tony Rubolotta works in the technology industry.
Recent Articles
Valuation of Biological Units
God, Family & Country Revisited
Good Nazis
Baiting the Debate
Another View of Outsourcing
America's Great Utopian Success Story
Unholy Trinity
Foreign Policy by Personality Disorder
Transparent in Audacity Only II
Transparent in Audacity Only
Moral Confusion As a Tactic
Two Golden Rules
A Different View on Tort Reform
Far-Fetched But Not Crazy
My No Thank You Note to Obama
Economic Responsibility is Health Care Reform
Party of Irrelevance
Mending the Conservative Split
Attacking Liberty One Puff at a Time
The Illinois GOP: Monkey See, Monkey Do
When Liberty is the Minority View
Obama, Frank & Dodd, LLP
Urgently Needed: A Republican Revival
Socialism, Failure & Harsh Reality
From Fear to Despair to Hope
No Peace at Any Price
Affordable Righteous Indignation
Centrist by Definition
Critical Thinking in the Box
Liberal Economics for Dummies
Repealing the Law of Gravity
Social Bookmarking

Tony Rubolotta

Valuation of Biological Units
November 23, 2009

ObamaCare, regardless of its final version, is a framework for a bureaucracy like most laws passed by Congress. Regulators will write all of the rules, procedures, guidelines and details in accordance with the requirements of the enabling law. Congress will later vote to accept or reject those regulations. A Congress that can’t be bothered to read a 1,000+ or 2,000+ page bill they propose to make law is not likely to read the 10,000 to 30,000 pages of regulations, forms, diagrams and interpretive guides they will vote to make law.

Those regulations will expand in subsequent versions as the regulators find and close loopholes, assume broader powers and attempt to meet budgetary restraints. Almost immediately, the regulations will be beyond the ability of most citizens to understand or read because of the sheer volume, incessant cross-references, invented language and legal language. Those regulations will become the province of lobbyists focused on specific aspects related to the special interests they represent. Public hearings on proposed regulations may be open to the public but public attendance, unless you have an extraordinary amount of free time and are willing to be humiliated by smarter than you regulators, will be a sham. Note that such public hearings will not entertain any suggestion the law is a failure no matter how badly it has failed. The operating premise is that no matter how bad the law is in principle, it can be "fixed” by the regulators.

Like all such legislation passed to create the alphabet soup agencies, only those entities with large resources of money and people will have the time for analysis and input. Those interests consists mostly of big business, big labor and advocates of big government. Their objective is to carve as much money from the regulations as the budget will permit and to gain an advantage over competing interests. Their objectives will be disguised and cloaked with buzzwords like "options”, "choices”, "quality”, "efficiency” and "compassion” in order to market their proposals.

A necessary part of any program that interferes with or eliminates free market controls are artificial controls, specifically rationing, and most likely followed by wage and price controls. Rationing must be written into the regulations to provide regulators with rules and guidelines because funding is not unlimited. Those regulators charged with enforcing the rationing rules are appropriately called "death panels” because that is what they will decide, who will get care and who will not. Rationing priorities must be established and at least assume some semblance of reason. Cost and benefit analysis is the model suggested, but rest assured politics will be the overriding criteria.

Cost and benefit analysis is entirely fitting with the leftists view that people are biological units endowed with certain abilities and needs that constitute the benefits and costs to the state. The higher the ratio of benefit to cost compared to the cost of care, the higher the priority in the rationing order. Age, talents, general health and numerous other factors will go into this formula, that is until the formula yields politically inconvenient results. Voter demographics and political correctness will determine the appropriate "fudge factors”.

At the very bottom of the list will be any unborn children with any kind of defect the state views as a long term liability. If the regulators see a voter demographic that will permit abortion in certain cases, that will be the only choice offered the mother when it comes to health care. The regulators are not concerned with morality but with a budget and what is politically possible. The budget the regulators are looking at is not just immediate costs, but long term costs as well. All the marvels of creative government accounting and data processing will be applied to determine eligibility for survival.

As for funding voluntary abortions, that will come too, not through regulation but through judicial fiat. The court will reason that if abortion is a legal right, then government programs cannot withhold the means of exercising that right, or distinguishing it from any other right granted under the purview of health care. If you are entitled to a boob-job for self-esteem, you are entitled to an abortion for the same reason. That is all it will take to torpedo any anti-abortion provisions of the law.

How rationing will affect each of us individually is not difficult to predict based in part on simple logic and in part on political correctness. Where do you fit? Being an old white guy of European descent and Christian belief, I know I have to be very near the bottom though I may be partially redeemed by my productivity. It really depends on whether or not my abilities exceed my needs and how that squares with more politically correct applicants.

We may fool ourselves into believing rationing can be eliminated if we simply increase the health care budget, but that can only happen if we increase our overall wealth or reallocate our government spending priorities or both. Our debt is increasing and will continue to increase, so it becomes a matter of how much more we can borrow from other nations before they cancel our credit card. The fact is we are not producing wealth but destroying it. Our government spending priorities can be changed, but that will depend on political feasibility. We could eliminate our military and be healthy but defenseless. Some on the left would welcome that. We can shuffle money from one program to another, but that is entirely a political calculation.

A nanny state populated by so many children with a shortage of producing adults may have the best intentions but will never have the means. The biological units must be content with what gifts mommy can produce, borrow or steal, and that pool of resources is drying up.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review