In previous blog posts I discussed Taming the Wolf concepts using health-care legislation as a working example. This past week, in the Massachusetts election, the public expressed dissatisfaction with the corrupt process, as I anticipated. Voters have become increasingly wary of government intrusion and coercion; they have grasped the wisdom that led St. Francis to reject domination and coercion as operating principles.
With the looming failure of the proposed legislation, it is valid to ask if Franciscan Action Network (along with other concerned Christians) must watch their dreams of health-care reform fade? Are the values put forth by the USCCB and noted on the FAN site no longer in play?
Perhaps it is too early to embrace pessimism. To the contrary, the events of this past week may actually signal a golden opportunity to bring insurance coverage to the less fortunate. The looming failure of current Senate and House bills offers FAN (and others) a chance to emerge as facilitators, as honest brokers, of a new process that eschews coercive government control while addressing widespread desire for reform.
Freed from the pressure to alloy their efforts with coercive government, FAN now has an opportunity to energize a non-governmental movement that seeks solutions that do not include sacrifice of personal liberty or the need to ignore bribes paid to special interests. FAN has an opportunity to offer the public precisely that which politicians cannot provide—ethical leadership that rises above special-interest politics. Rather than rely on coercion, mandates, and back-room deals, Franciscans can inspire change through their expression of faith, which includes devotion to helping the poor.
FAN can build on the widespread common sense desire for a competitive system in which insurers compete across state lines. They can advocate modest legislation that opens markets across the country to new competition. Support among the public for this type of solution should make it easy to pass.
Once insurance can be marketed across state lines, FAN and the USCCB might collaborate to bring together the leadership talent required to create a non-profit insurance company attractive to Catholics across the nation. Such a non-profit carrier might set premiums so that more fortunate plan members will subsidize many who were previously uninsured. Participants who voluntarily embrace the gospel mission of taking care of the poor will happily pay higher premiums to make this dream possible.
Protestant groups, following this example, might offer similar nationwide non-profit insurance plans. Eventually, a nationwide umbrella of Christian providers could change the nature of the health insurance business, integrating compassion into their business models. Other insurers would then be faced with a need to compete against such providers, which would force widespread change.
The executives and employees of non-profit Christian insurers, unlike government employees, would be passionate about controlling costs. The fact that efficient stewardship of resources would lead to greater numbers of people receiving health care would provide their motivation. In this model, cost controls would translate into tangible positive gain for the insured.
The public has spoken through the ballot box and their voices can only be expected to grow louder. They do not want corrupt, intrusive, coercive, cynical politicians to be allowed to control intimate areas of their lives such as health care. This does not mean they do not want health-care reform, rather it means they want private sector services delivered by ethical, compassionate and caring leadership. This provides a golden opportunity for FAN to unhitch its efforts from coercive and corrupt politicians and lead in a new direction.
While this approach may be simplistic and idealistic, often it is simple and clear ideas that lead to change we need. Taming the Wolf hopes to contribute to such change by introducing principles that ethical servant leaders can use to design processes that ultimately lead to satisfaction of the interests of those who are served.
Related Posts
- Coercive Healthcare Legislation
- Making Decisions
- Immigration Reform
- Satisfaction
- Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
Category: Blog, Commentary
As I understand the issue, the cost of health care is kept low by limiting the amount of risk in the pool. There are two ways to do this – either increase the size of the pool (statistically there are more healthy people at any given time), or selectively eliminate risk by finding various ways to deny coverage. The first option is how insurance is supposed to work, the second is a perversion, because insurance that only insures healthy people is no insurance at all.
Statistically the best way to limit risk and maintain missional integrity would be to have a universal pool – and to count on health of the average American to keep costs low. The problem is the government’s wasteful track record, and controling nature, (I don’t want someone telling me I can’t have a Big Mac, or go water skiing).
In a competitive system however, the possibility of a universal pot is not an option. Unhealthy people, people who’s jobs require that they take greater risks, will always run the risk of being pushed off the rolls either by selective exclusion, or by prohibitive costs. Because whereas most for profit companies exist to have you use MORE of their product, insurance companies depend on you NOT using their product.
Your plan (to create an insurance option that competes effectively with those who limit costs in an unethical manor, by starting with a smaller pool, taking on additional risk, and charging higher premiums) does not seem like it will work.
The question then is – who can you trust more to provide for peoples health. Given the nature of health insurance (it is more profitable when people do not use it), it seems like it is a venture that is best kept out of the realm of private industry. Health Insurance is more like Fire and Police protection, than like Sony, RCA, and Coca Cola.
I have great respect for the Fire and Police departments. I think they do a fine job – I am generally unaware of any administrative waste (I’m sure there is some), but the service they provide is too important to trust to just anyone. When I occasionally am unhappy with things like police coverage (I live in a rough neighborhood) I have recourse with the government. I can vote the bums out of office. I have no such input regarding corporate corruption.
Pertinacious Papist has a nice quote from Feser. Click through to read the whole article:
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2010/04/catholic-critique-of-obama-care-reform.html