Cui Bono

That's Latin, boys and girls, and it means, "Who benefits." The ancient Romans used the phrase and so does every good detective. It's a question that's worth asking whenever there's a proposal for a change in public policy.

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette contains a column on the editorial page headlined, "Colorado: Forget Obamacare health benefits exchange." The first paragraph of the article reads as follows.

"Obamacare is unpopular, unwieldy, expensive, arguably unconstitutional, and a prime target for repeal. It requires the states to do much of the federal government's dirty work. Right now, the federal government is paying states $1 million to plan health insurance exchanges designed (to) limit the kinds of health insurance policies available to state residents."

Let me parse this paragraph just a bit. The writers contend that Obamacare, as they like to call it, is unpopular. It seems to me that public opinion polling shows a majority of the population favors the program. It's not an overwhelming majority, I'll concede, but we do believe in majority rule in this country. Perhaps they're relying on the premise that if they say something often enough it will become true. They then say the program is unwieldy and expensive. My impression is that it's just in the planning phase, as they admit a little further on in their diatribe. How would they know it's unwieldy and expensive if it hasn't been put into effect yet?

Obamacare is arguably unconstitutional. Its Constitutionality will be decided by the Supreme Court, however, not by newspaper columnists whose expertise and motivation are very dubious. More on that later.

Exactly what "dirty work" are they complaining about? Trying to be sure all Americans can receive medical care when they're sick? Well, I never. . . .

The federal government is spending $1 million dollars to plan exchanges? Suddenly I'm reminded of Doctor Evil in the Austin Powers movies, diabolically trying to extort that sum from the United Nations, only to be told that nowadays $1 million is not really so much money. Actually, even if you say it's $50 million for the fifty states that comes to about sixteen cents for every man woman and child in the country. I'm not for an instant advocating wasting that amount of money, or any money for that matter, but hey, lets keep a sense of proportion here.

"Designed to limit the kinds of health insurance policies available. . ." Like the columnists, I'm in favor of free choice. The difficulty is that the market itself usually limits the variety of products and services available. When there is a multiplicity of choices beyond about four, the market drives the overpriced and shoddy out of business. But in the meantime, some people make choices that turn out to be contrary to their own best interests. Normally this isn't so bad, but in the case of health insurance one bad decision could bankrupt a person or worse, preclude needed care. I wonder, and I think with good reason, if the insurers don't deliberately make their policies so confusing that even well-informed folks can find themselves buying coverage they don't need and lacking what they do need.

I'm not a particular fan of "Obamacare." It seems needlessly confusing to me, but I believe the complications were the result of the attempt to placate the Republicans in Congress who are now adamantly against the measure for the reasons they insisted be included in it!

Now about the writers of this article and the organizations they represent. John R. Graham is the "Director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Institute in San Francisco." Linda Gorman is "Director of the Health Care Policy Center at the Independence Institute in Golden." A quick visit to the Internet sites for these two organizations reveals that Mr. Graham was awarded a bachelor's degree in economics and holds a masters degree in business administration. Ms. Gorman likewise is an economist. Neither person has any medical credentials.

They are affiliated respectively with the Pacific Institute and the Independence Institute. A visit to the websites of the two "think tanks" clearly shows they are committed to an unregulated free market state and are working to remove as much of the societal "safety net" as they can. I could not find any information concerning who funds these organizations, but the Pacific Institute does say it is allied with other organizations with innocuous names, including the Cato Institute and the Hispanic American Center for Economic Growth. They all cite one another as authorities to lend credence to their own "findings."

In the parlance of the 1930's and '40's, these look like front organizations to me, sounding wholesome enough, but masking the real power behind them.

Who benefits? I don't know, but the Pacific Institute does say it accepts donations from corporations. Could those corporations include purveyors of health care insurance?