The subject of providing insurance coverage to the uninsured is a melancholy one. How in the world does the wealthiest nation on Earth have nearly 50 million uninsured people? The sheer number of uninsured is compounded exponentially by the number of politicians, PACs, lobbyists and issue-driven organizations taking in donations and producing nothing of intrinsic or lasting value. On the one hand, we have the poorest Americans in desperate need and want. They risk everything they own just to walk into a hospital to seek care. On the other hand, we have literally thousands (or more!) in the ranks of the political class seeking financial support to print yard signs, billboards and television attack ads ad infinitum. What's more is the forgone conclusion of the corrupting influence of these sums of money. We endure both of these blights for unknown, torturous reasons. Take a look around – everywhere a politician or a fellow uninsured citizen, each with his or her hand out.
We can all agree that this prodigious number of uninsured among the general population and politicians at the federal, state and local levels of government with their corresponding lobbyists, PACs, and other organizations seeking financial contributions regardless of political party affiliation, are a significant contributor to the current state of national grievance. It is therefore noted that whosoever would propose a system to reduce both the number of the uninsureds while simultaneously minimizing the flow of money into politics would do the nation a valuable service; so valuable, in fact, that a statue would most certainly be set up in his or her honor as a preserver of the nation.
My scheme is quite simple really. To provide care to the uninsured, we need a source of revenue. To obtain said revenue, we need only look to the ranks of the politicians. My plan calls for a new tax on all political contributions of 50 percent. Half. Right down the middle. Fifty-fifty. By my estimation we would reap nothing but national bliss from this arrangement, including, but not limited to reduced political advertisements of all sorts, reduction in the overwhelming corrupting influence of money on politicians, and, last, but certainly not the least, the reduction in the numbers of the uninsured.
Recommended For You
With respect to the reduction in political corruption, need I provide further rhetorical rationale for my proposal? By removing effectively half of all political campaign revenue from the system, the nation would reduce the value of the favors needed to be repaid upon the heads of contributors by our elected representatives. Such reduction in influence would then provide an unencumbered and unfettered elected political class free to serve the public; fully enabled to fulfill sincerely their campaign promises and platitudes. Also, with the reduction in corruption cases to pursue civilly and criminally we will also free up resources within the legal system to pursue other, non-political cases resulting in fewer judicial backlogs and increased conviction rates. Indeed, lower crime directly and indirectly would be a benefit of this proposal.
Political campaign contributors would also be favored with additional time and resources with which to pursue other, more productive endeavors. This additional dividend of productivity and economic activity would return proportionate amounts of increased tax revenue, employment (many of whom would be from the ranks of the uninsured), and additions to GDP. And with these favorable outcomes, improvements in the stock market would be inevitable. Thus retirement plans, investors, and retirees would collectively greatly appreciate the rise in value. 401(k) owners across the nation would unitedly shout for joy at this prospect.
One of the cherished improvements reaped from the implementation of this proposal will be the immediate reduction in political advertisement in all its forms. Yard signs, billboards, television attack ads, polling, canvassing, signature collection, pamphlets, mailers and the like will be significantly reduced, if not eliminated entirely. The lack of production of paper goods for each election cycle alone should provide enough impetus for the green crowd to support my plan. It's Earth friendly! And the reduction in postal traffic alone may be enough to save more than trees; the ailing USPS may find itself awash in cash at the reduction in low-revenue producing, heavy political mailers. Television stations would be free from election year regulation demanding candidates and issues be granted equal time. Truly, the airwaves would belong once again to the American people. With this proposal, the nuisances of modern political campaigns will be relegated to the scrap heap of history. Good riddance!
With the increase of tax revenue (directly from the plan and indirectly from improvements in other areas), GDP, stock values, and corresponding reductions in crime, law enforcement requirements, prison costs, unemployment and uninsured, the remaining uninsured citizenry would easily be covered with a new universal health insurance plan. With individuals and corporations taxed at the same rate (50 percent), both would share the burden in new taxes. But since corporations and large PACs spend the most on political contributions, the burden would mostly be theirs.
In fact, we may find the improvements noted above so ingratiating to us as a nation, that the uninsured wouldn't even be asked to contribute to their own, new insurance program. We could explore benefit options with little or no deductibles, minimal out-of-pocket expense, while including all providers. The overall goal should be to placate the enrollee in such a way as to maximize satisfaction with the plan, even though they would not be able to disenroll from the plan. This would minimize the need for customer service which would only add to the cost of administration. It is in our national best interest to minimize the cost of the new insurance program.
Detractors of my plan will be easily identified: they are the ones with a flag lapel pin grieving about the impossibility of election. Their party affiliation is irrelevant: my proposal is naturally bipartisan. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, moderates, populists, and liberals alike will all be subject to the same tax. No loopholes, no increases to current contribution limits. This scheme is iron clad in its evenhandedness. Incumbents and unelected candidates alike will raise all sorts of objection to the proposal, despite its extreme modesty and intentions.
The system of rebuttal is also quite modest – elegant in reality: What patriotic candidate would deny healthcare to the needy? What political campaign finds itself above the national interests of elimination of the uninsured, increase in GDP, and reduction of political corruption? Name one party, candidate, or organization who would publicly oppose this proposition. It can't be done.
What about the First Amendment rights of free political speech represented by the contributions? Initially, one might think my proposal a violation of the provision for free speech. To that I only need to point to McCain-Feingold which was upheld by the Supreme Court. Besides, with the overwhelming American majority sure to be invariably in support of this idea, who's to say that the intent of the political contribution with the full knowledge of such a taxation scheme isn't already free political speech? I would gladly continue to give to my favored political causes and candidates knowing half of it would go to insuring the uninsured. In fact, we may see more political contributions with my proposal just to ensure we have enough to insure the uninsured. People like George Soros and PACs like MoveOn.org would presumably be gung-ho for this idea. I welcome their support in advance.
I see this as a win-win. The nation gets richer. Crime goes down. Money removed from politics. Television becomes more entertaining. And the proposal is green. Who's with me?
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
