Synergy is a great word for a process where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Health Care Bill being proposed seems just the opposite of that,  so I was searching for a word that is the opposite of synergy.

The best word is probably ‘asynergy'. Where ‘synergy' also means the effective coordination of muscles, asynergy refers to the defective coordination of muscles. Asynergy could thus effectively and appropriately be used to be the opposite of synergy, although I prefer ‘disynergy', which did not really exist as a word until now.

In a state of ‘anergy'  or ‘disynergy' the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

This is what happens when some desirable parts are united in a comprehensive radically systemic change.  It is the problem with much reform in general. It is really an issue of depth.

In isolation elimination of pre-existing conditions sounds appealing. In execution it requires that pricing be controlled. What good is guaranteed coverage if the price is so high you cannot afford it? So the bill limits the maximum rates as a percentage of the lowest rates. This shifts the costs and raises other people's rates, particularly the young.

The solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions then exacerbates  the other  major problem that affects far more people; cost,  and the proposed bill  just makes that worse. 

If  the insurance companies are required to underwrite regardless of pre-existing conditions then the cost curve will be bent dramatically upward.  No one will carry coverage until they need it... unless we make BUYING insurance mandatory.

The end result of attacking the problem of pre-existing conditions is thus the mandatory acquisition of substantially more expensive coverage by the youngest members of our society.

This explains the turn in the public's sentiment towards health care reform.  If we poll the voters and ask them if they are in favor of eliminating pre-existing conditions in the purchase of health insurance the reply would likely be yes, because few would look beyond the question in isolation.

But if we ask the voters if they favor ‘mandatory acquisition of substantially more expensive coverage by the youngest members of our society' the answer would likely change radically. Yet these are merely two sides of the same question.

The Democrats still seemed stunned how they failed on their flagship issue.  The issue that they thought gave them an edge with the voters  is now the sword they are falling on.  They created an extremely undesirable bill filled with desirable objectives.

At least now we have a word for it.

Henry Oliner