spatial networks | location leverage

Mr. President, I would implore you to take care and consider carefully the concept of universal health care and the implications of the extra-ordinary taxation of so-called “cadillac” plans.

We are a small, private company. We offer exceptional benefits to our staff. I would be proud to hold our entire benefits and compensation package up against that of any company. One of the most important aspects of our corporate benefits is a commitment to staff well-being, and to this end, we provide 100% employer-paid health care and dental plans, across the board for each and every employee, regardless of tenure or role in the company. We do this for several reasons, but foremost is that our employees are also fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons or daughters, and one of our core values is to remove obstacles to their success. Eliminating cost barriers to making the right health-care choices is why we are determined to maintain this benefit for our staff.

Would this be considered a “cadillac” plan under your vision of universal health-care, Mr. President? It might. In that case, enacting and implementing extra-ordinary taxation in whatever form imagined would be rife with unfortunate if not unintended consequences. In our case, it would not likely have the impact or reaction that many companies take in either downsizing staff or reducing the corporate benefit, but it most certainly would cauterize any growth plans we presently have, and that impact alone, Mr. President, revisited across the country, would have dramatic, negative consequences on the economy as a whole for a generation or more. Have you counted the costs, over months and years, that this drag on the economy would have? It is geometric in nature and just like a battleship, very difficult to halt over short periods of time.

But, I will go further, as this is a corporate blog usually reserved for geospatial musings. Let’s consider the impact that an apparent lack of appreciation for the geographic aspects of the root problem have on the policy now under consideration. There are many examples of maps, yes - pretty pictures that earn their keep, that illustrate the disparity across the country (that’s geographic) in the distribution of certain major and minor health care issues and their respective economic impacts. For example, the percentage of cigarette smokers is not uniform if plotted at the postal code level across the country. Likewise, the distribution of people who are clinically obese at the postal code or other such discrete unit, shows unequal concentrations in certain geographies. I am not unfairly singling out smokers and obese people; this same application of geospatial technology can be made on any number of national health care issues which, coincidentally enough, contribute disproportionately to the overall health care costs in this country.

Would this universal health-care plan that is envisioned, or even the extra-ordinary taxation on “cadillac” plans take into consideration these geographic factors? Why would (or should) a company in California be unreasonably penalized with higher premiums or “tax” to offset the increased health care needs of an aging, yet longer-living population here in Florida? Why should a small company in Florida be burdened, disproportionately and unfairly with a “tax” on an otherwise exceptional health-care plan because certain sections of the country are overweight and thus require high-cost remedies? Lastly, what of those individuals, who, under normal circumstances are generally above average if not in excellent health? These people are sprinkled around the country. Does their geographic proximity to “poor health” clusters condemn them to pay for realities beyond their control?

Many states have toll-roads or otherwise tax users of transportation corridors, and people readily pay the premium to be able to travel relatively unencumbered. This is otherwise known as a “use tax.” Those who use the highways pay the tax; those who do not use them certainly do not have to pay. Wouldn’t a corresponding “use tax” in the health care system be more appropriate, after thorough geospatial analysis, than a blanket, naked attempt at overlooking individual choice and responsibility under the guise of fair and equitable health-care coverage?