I've been quite busy the last couple of weeks and haven't had time to write about everything commentworthy that I see going by on the news. But tonight I had a few free minutes and wanted to make some observations about this silly “trigger” idea I've seen floated as an alleged compromise on health care.

First, on the notion that we should give insurance companies a chance to fix things on their own and only if they fail should we act: Absolutely. But I want “credit for time served.” They've had this chance for decades now and have abused the privilege of being allowed time to show the market could work. Even with a delay to allow insurance companies a chance, if you set the start time appropriately—several decades ago—our trigger alarm has not only been ringing too long, but the snooze button is at risk of wearing out from being hit too many times.

Second, it's worth closely scrutinizing any delay that moves responsibility to a different political term. That's sometimes necessary, but at other times it's done for cynical reasons.

I once worked for a company that laid off a great many of its employees, but on a six week delay. “Finish up soon,” the company urged, “because we need those products in good shape when you're gone.” What a surprise that those employees, who were no longer worried about losing their job, found themselves unable to focus clearly on finishing those products and instead consumed with discussing how to get a new company president who better understood what it would take to move the company ahead. That “worked,” by the way: The layoff was canceled in time, and the soon-to-be-laid-off employees were rescued by the new president, who canceled that layoff.

So you can understand why I might think when I hear someone say “give us some time,” and when I know that they have elaborate resources for influencing politics, that there might be some chance that instead of directing resources to cleaning up their act in the marketplace, they'll direct their precious resources even more heavily than usual into influencing the next election, just possibly asking that the candidates they support for Congress be ones who support canceling the trigger.

And finally I'll leave you with a metaphor to contemplate. A lot of our present economic woes came from the handling of mortgages. Among the tools for that was the Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM). Superficially, you might think my metaphor is going to be about rates and costs, but let's step up a level and think of an ARM not in terms of “paying” but in terms of “perceiving truth.” The hurtful thing about ARMs for many people wasn't the money, it was the delaying of the perception of reality. Years passed when something could have been done but wasn't, and by the time the reality caught up, it was even harder to deal with.

That's what a trigger is offering us. It seeks to say to people “things are ok now, wait a while and you can choose something better later if you need it.” Both of those statements are false and we need to start thinking in the present. Things are not ok now. Things may be ok for some people, but not for all. And if you're deciding whether your health care is ok based on having recently submitted a bill and having it paid, you're ignoring the many stories that say others have found this can change suddenly, without notice. Moreover, the trigger deceptively suggests you'll be able to change later. But just like holders of ARMs found out the hard way, the situation can change in unexpected ways. Our political situation could change, too. We have a lot of legislators poised to support health care reform just now. That could change. We must act now or may not have the chance later.