In recent news, New Jersey has taken steps to require universal health coverage for residents, following (sort of) in the footsteps of Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont. One of the key differences between New Jersey and other plans is that Jersey will finance health coverage by redistributing existing funds rather than adding to the budget.In what otherwise seems like a positive development in this health care-ravaged country, I can't help but get tripped up on the word "required." Having two common definitions, it is the second that comes to mind here: "To demand authoritatively; insist upon," rather than the first: "To have need of; to find necessary." And with this, comes other uncomfortable associations: requiring requires proving, then enforcing, then penalties, etc. etc.
Perhaps these two definitions bump up against one another much like they do in the Ron Paul political campaign, where a savvy politician stumbled upon the rhetoric of a dissatisfied generation, i.e. "Less government." But can something like universal health care ever be compatible with "less government"? There's the rub.
In any case. Universal health care good. Unchecked "requiring" bad.
Yes! This "requirement" is certainly something of concern, and the same idea/terminology is being used in proposals on the national level. Is this a way of saying we are required to have health insurance - sort of like we are required to have car insurance? Could this really be yet another of the growing number of schemes put forth by the U.S. government to further increase the profits for the corporate structure that has increasing control over this country?!!?
ReplyDelete