The Individual Mandate: The Dilemma of Ethical vs. Constitutional

As I'm sure many of you are aware at this point, the House of Representative passed a healthcare reform bill on Sunday night, and Obama signed this bill into law on Tuesday. While overall I think the bill is a good first step, there is one part of the bill that many people are struggling to support - the individual mandate.

The idea behind the individual mandate, which would require almost everyone to purchase health insurance if they do not already have it, is that if everyone is forced to buy insurance, it both drives costs down, and ensures that Congress is actively involved in keeping premiums low for their constituents. Yesterday, however, 13 states filed lawsuits claiming that the requirement of US citizens to purchase something potentially against their will is both unprecedented and unconstitutional. While those against the individual mandate speak of freedom and choice, there's another aspect to it that detractors seem to absolutely avoid - the ethical implications.

Without the mandate (but keeping the rest of the reforms in place), the sickest people will be forced to spend every last penny on expensive coverage while the healthiest can simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage (if the cost of their bills is higher than the premiums, of course). In my mind, the morals of helping those less fortunate than you are far more compelling than the constitutional freedom to not purchase health insurance. The freedom-to-choose argument would be far more valid if the government were forcing citizens to purchase something trivial, but this is not the case - in addition to helping reduce the healthcare costs of everyone sicker than you, by purchasing health insurance you (surprise!) get coverage in case you too get sick. It's not something most reasonable people wouldn't want.

As it stands, however, the penalties for failing to buy health insurance would start out far lower than it would cost to buy insurance. If someone simply did not want insurance and it makes more sense for them financially to pay a fine than pay premiums, what's to stop them from doing so? In reality, I don't think the number of people who absolutely don't want insurance is very high. Like any product we buy, it costs money to get something in return, and the question here is how much money before the cost outweighs the individual's desire for coverage? Is the government allowed to determine that price? Obviously, with the individual mandate comes a greater responsibility on the part of the government to keep the costs down so that everyone is happy with the balance of the product they're receiving and what they're paying for it. And, of course, anyone who absolutely does not want insurance under any circumstances should have to pay a fine for not having coverage if they expect to be treated at a hospital in the case of an emergency.

It's hard to determine at this point if the individual mandate will actually force the uninsured to purchase coverage, so speculation on its' effectiveness is moot at this point in time. I like to think that most people are generally reasonable enough to see the benefit of having health insurance, and understand that if everyone contributes to the pool, everyone benefits from lower costs. Those who persist on arguing that, on constitutional grounds, they should be allowed to not purchase insurance if they don't want it simply solidify in my mind that America is the only civilized country in the world in which the individual desires of citizens come before the welfare of the whole. And in the end, that's not a very admirable thing, is it?

Should the guy pay?

This question came up in conversation last night, and I was sort of surprised by the number of people in my group - women, mostly - that feel comfortable with a guy paying for her meal on a first date. Let me clarify before I begin, however, that I understand the courtesy behind the gesture and, as a guy, I feel it is polite to offer to pay; however, I feel equally as strongly that, were I a woman, I would not accept that offer. Here's why.

I feel the gesture hearkens back to a time when women were not considered self-sufficient, when they were under the care of their father until a suitable man came to marry them/take care of them. It seems awfully old-fashioned and sexist; again, were I a woman, I would feel strongly that I should pay for myself at the very least as a show of my independence.

I also feel as though it creates an awkward sense of imbalance in the relationship when a man pays for a woman's meal, as though the woman needs to make up for it somehow later. I was told quite simply that this is not the case last night - perhaps if it's a tradition you're used to complying with I can see this not being an issue. I suppose this is just a feeling I have from my experience that most girls I've dated have generally not wanted me to pay for their food.

And finally, from my perspective as a guy, I can say if I were to offer to pay and my date declined, it's actually quite reassuring, and not just on my wallet. To me it indicates that she wants to be on a date with me, that she's not there simply because she expected a free meal, that she was willing to have her wallet take a hit to be with me. I suppose the counter-argument to this is, "Well, HE asked ME out, shouldn't he pay?" I would lend this argument more credence if I didn't feel it was a double-standard. Were the roles reversed (if the girl asked the guy out), could the guy truly expect the girl to pay for the meal?

All of this said, I can think of an exceptions to this - one in which a guy chooses an extremely expensive restaurant without consulting the girl. This guy's a douchebag if he expects her to pay in this case.

Essentially, I disagree with the tradition and I think it's dumb, but I respect it. If you're a guy and you claim to have manners, you should always offer to pay. And if you're a girl, in my opinion you should thank him for offering and politely decline.

Personal Golden Globe Picks

MOVIES

I'm going to skip these categories; I have seen almost none of the movies or actors/actresses nominated, and therefore I hardly feel qualified to judge. I will say that if Christoph Waltz doesn't win in his category (Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture) I think something is wrong. I also feel that the James Cameron will probably win Best Director, although I'd like to see it go to Quentin Tarantino. I'd also like to see him win Best Screenplay, though I'd be happy if District 9 or Up in the Air took that one.

TV

Best Television Series (Drama)
Winner - Dexter
Other nominees - Big Love, Mad Men, House, True Blood

Realistically, this will go to Mad Men, which I started watching at one point but hated every single character; I know that I should probably give it a second chance. House has been declining in terms of quality these past few seasons, and I'm pretty sure True Blood isn't a drama, it's actually a farce. I haven't seen Big Love, but I felt convinced after watching this past season of Dexter that it deserves it this year.

Best Actress in a Television Drama - Of the ladies in this category, I've only seen Anna Paquin in True Blood, so I'm not going to make a call on this because I don't think she deserves a nomination, let alone a win. My prediction, however, is that this will go to Glenn Close for Damages.

Best Actor in a Television Drama
Winner - Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Other nominees - Jon Hamm, Mad Men; Simon Baker, The Mentalist; Bill Paxton, Big Love; Hugh Laurie, House.

Again, I think Dexter really pulled it off this season. Jon Hamm will PROBABLY win again, but whatever. Hugh Laurie is, as always, deserving of the award as well, but this wasn't his best year either. I've seen Simon Baker in a few episodes of the Mentalist, and I don't really know why he was nominated. Again, I haven't seen Big Love.

Best Comedy or Musical
Winner - 30 Rock
Other nominees - Modern Family, Glee, Entourage, The Office

This was a really good year for comedy - in all honesty, I think How I Met Your Mother and Bored to Death probably deserved nominations instead of The Office and Entourage. I'm a huge fan of both Modern Family and Glee, and while the former is a really close second (and I'd love to see Glee win awards), I can't choose anything to win this award besides 30 Rock. Quite simply, it's the best, most consistently humorous comedy on TV.

Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical
Winner - Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Other nominees - Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie; Toni Colette, United States of Tara; Lea Michele, Glee; Courtney Cox, Cougartown

No, I haven't seen Nurse Jackie (Edie Falco had a brief stint on 30 Rock in its' second season, though!) or United States of Tara, but Tina Fey is where it's at. Lea Michele is insanely talented, but she works better on Broadway than TV. Courtney Cox getting a nomination must be some kind of joke, since the character she plays in Cougartown is Monica from Friends after a divorce and a relocation to Florida. Very original. Should be Amy Poehler getting at least a nomination for Parks and Recreation.

Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical
Winner - Matthew Morrison, Glee
Other nominees - Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock; Thomas Jane, Hung; Steve Carell, The Office; David Duchovny, Californication

I feel like I sort of have to justify myself for this one, especially because I already know that Alec Baldwin is going to win. I do feel that the other candidates (Thomas Jane not included, I haven't gotten around to watching Hung yet) are getting boring - Alec Baldwin and Steve Carell have been playing those characters [quite well] for years, and I think Hank Moody is probably eerily similar to what David Duchovny is like in real life. (Sex addict, anyone?) Matthew Morrison does a fantastic job on Glee, and I'd like to see them mix it up this year, because the man clearly has talent.

I'll wrap this up by saying that, while I have not seen the other nominees in these categories, I hope the Best Supporting Actor and Actress (TV) awards go to John Lithgow (Dexter) and Jane Lynch (Glee) respectively. They were both super.

Movies from 2009 that I'd still like to see

Watchmen
Public Enemies (?)
Ponyo
Extract (?)
Capitalism: A Love Story (?)
Paranormal Activity
Whip It
Where The Wild Things Are
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Blind Side
The Princess and the Frog
Invictus
A Single Man