Skip to comments.A Repeal by Any Other Name
Posted on 04/01/2014 4:11:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
Should Congress repeal Obamacare?
If you had asked that before the botched Affordable Care Act rollout, I would have had a hard time answering yes. I didn't see how the scheme could work, but I also believed that Washington owed the millions of Americans who I was told had been waiting desperately for years for guaranteed health care.
Now I say, "What's in a name?" There's no need for a repeal when Washington is bound to revamp the law. The reason: Consumers aren't buying it.
According to the White House, more than 6 million people have signed onto Obamacare exchanges. Problem: The law kicked close to 5 million Americans off their private health care plans. Also, the administration says it doesn't know how many new plan members actually are paying their premiums, so that 6 million figure could be highly inflated.
At best, more than 1 million extra Americans got new private coverage, while 5 million individual policyholders got kicked off their old plans. Some won't have access to the doctors they were promised they could keep.
For many, the new plans are less affordable than their old plans. Industry graybeard Robert Laszewski found that many exchange providers "are just re-enrolling their old customers at higher rates." Call it the Less Affordable Care Act.
Individuals who qualify for federal subsidies probably will pay lower premiums, but only because taxpayers are subsidizing their plans. How is that more affordable for America?
Obamacare also expanded Medicaid coverage for 7 million uninsured Americans. Thing is, President Barack Obama didn't need to upend the private market in order to expand Medicaid coverage. The same goes for the highly popular but utterly nonsensical provision that allows adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until they turn 26.
Already the Democrats are gutting Obamacare. The administration has delayed provisions 38 times, by the Wall Street Journal editorial page's count. The White House even asked insurers to continue providing those "substandard" plans it had banned. Six Democratic senators have come up with a plan to offer consumers more choices, spur competition and increase affordability.
On "Fox News Sunday," one of the six authors, Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, essentially declared the Affordable Care Act dead. "There's no such thing as Obamacare," he said. "You can't sign up for Obamacare. You're signing up for an Anthem policy or an Aetna policy or a WellPoint policy. It's private insurance."
The private market has had many drawbacks but one salvation: Until Obamacare, people were free to refuse to pay for a bad deal.
Months ago, reader Bob Duste of Glen Ellen, Calif., wrote to tell me that under Obamacare, his premiums had doubled while his deductible went up by 25 percent. His family can take the hit, he wrote, but he was "disillusioned with the efficacy of most government programs that end up being forced upon the unwilling as opposed to a last resort for the downtrodden and truly indigent."
Simply put, the Democrats didn't know what they were doing, but that didn't stop them from forcing their magical thinking on people who didn't want it.
The propaganda reader was reporting that Obama was a last minute success, 2 million visitors to the website and they have signed up 7 million people - what they predicted all along. No mention of the 8 delays since it's rollout last year. No mention of the demographics (subsidies). No mention of actual payments. Just numbers - incredible numbers.
Even more incredulous, they attributed to the boost to an appearance of the ONE in an interview he did with Zack Galifianakis on “Zack Galifianakis Between the Palms” or something stupid like that. A million signees, out of thin air - all because of Zack Galifianakis...imagine that.
I doubt we'll ever know the real truth of it. Our RINOs in charge aren't interested in holding this administration to account for anything - they only have vehemence for conservatives and the Tea Party it seems.
Simply put, the Democrats didn’t know what they were doing, but that didn’t stop them from forcing their magical thinking on people who didn’t want it.
That one sentence can be used to describe virtually every Democrat plan since I was born and quite possibly every other Government plan Local/State/Federal since the beginnings of the 20th century.
I’m Not to sure about the 1800’s but possibly even there too.
Undisputed Fact: BOTH Parties support statism and RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE.
Obama Admin. loves to give credit to videos.
According to them:
One video miraculously “caused” the attack on our Benghazi consulate.
A second video miraculously “caused” ObamaCare to get to the “7 million enrollees” milestone.
If only life were really so simple...
I quit reading in the first sentence,when the ignorant author talked about how fooled she was ...
The simpletons in the Obama admin like to conjure up "videos" to explain away their actions (or inaction):
<><> a nasty video caused the Benghazi consulate attack which killed four Americans.
<><> but a fortuitous video "miraculously caused ObamaCare to reach the 7 million enrollees milestone just as the enrollment date expired.
Even if the terminally stupid accede to the Boobamba admin's laughable last-minute "six million enrollees" figure (which includes duplicates and incompletes), that means just 810,000 of paying O/care customers were previously uninsured......a paltry 1.7% of America's uninsured......
DUMMCRAT PROBLEMS ACCELERATE The sting of the electorate is soon to be unleashed----voters steaming from broken promises, the disastrous online rollout, hundreds of thousands of policy cancellations, sticker shock over minimal coverage, ruinous deductibles, fleeing doctors, chaotic hospital networks, plus Obama's self-serving changes and delays in the law to make himself look good.
FOREGONE CONCLUSION: Obamacare is a blunder of Ceausescuian proportions.
“I doubt we’ll ever know the truth of it.”
They will, but we won’t.
The Ministry of Propaganda is doing its job well.
(Herr Goebbles would be very proud.)
Pay attention, close attention....... here is the way forward. You can tell all your friends and relatives.
Obamacare except as a tax, has essentially ceased to exist. It at the very least has been postponed into oblivion.
What is going to happen is the Supreme Court is going to render it gone. The Republicans will take control and assemble the various replacements out there into something that will pass.
The president will sign the new law claiming the old law was destroyed by an unreasonable and backward court. He will then claim credit for the portions of the new law that were in some way present in the old law.
It will end up a win win win
The winners...... Republican Congress, President Obama, the American people
Democrat Socialist President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreed wage and price controls on all US Companies during WW2.
To entice employees to join their company, increased wages were not allowed, but fringe benefits were allowed. Thus, partially paid insurance policies were offered to lure potential workers to join their company.
Not to be outdone, Democrat Socialist President Lyndon B. Johnson offered Medicare to lure voters to vote for his approved Democrat Socialist Candidates, including himself, naturally.
Of course the consumer pays for the insurance policy that a private company employee has with his company, and the taxpayer pays for all Federal Government insurance policies.
Thus, for private companies to drop all insurance policies that they partially provide for their employees will lower the cost of goods and services to the consumer.
In like manner, ending all Federal Insurance programs will lower the amount of taxes that the taxpayer pays.
Insurance is an un-neccesary expense for private companies.
Insurance is an frivolous expense for Governments to charge to taxpayers.
Private Companies should own and manage insurance companies who sell insurance to individuals in insurance pools set by these same companies.
Governments should be forbidden from offering any insurance products, as the function of Government is to provide a workable regulation basis, with NO conflict of interest.
IOW, the entity that regulates should not also be a provider of what they regulate.
Today the greed to buy votes by both political parties has bankrupted the entire US Federal Government.
Accordingly, the Democrat Socialists and Democrat Communists have joined forces to Nationalize 1/6 th of the US Economy to pay for their previous vote buying greed with the illegal passage of Obama Socialized Health Insurance Tax, or OSHIT.
Not to be outdone, the RINOs have their own replacement plan entitled RSHIT.
Candidate Mrs. Bill Clinton will probably have her own replacement plan entitled CSHIT.
OSHIT, RSHIT and CSHIT all have the common con-artist flaw that the youth will fund the old.
This will never happen as the taxes paid by the youth are minimal, and all Federal Programs are paid aways paid out of the General Fund.
There are no Federal Trust Funds, because the Federal Government goes broke 60 % into each year, every year!
IOW, whatever monies are left over from paying the expenses of OSHIT policy holders, will be much less that the Federal expenses to manage the OSHIIT program.
Thus, another income stream will have to be diverted from the private sector to the insatiable vote-buying greed of both political parties.
I suspect that Obama is withholding approval of the XL pipeline to that all US Pipelines could be Nationalized to pay for OSHIT, RSHIT, or CSHIT.
While the scenario you presented looks like it could play out, I have yet to see anyone in government publicly demonstrate an understanding of the underlying problem that can never be addressed through any practical proposed solution. This country is simply facing a demographic distortion where younger/healthier people are needed to offset the higher medical costs of the older generations. The country's "health care system" is broken (and was broken long before ObamaCare) because it is an insurance-oriented system where the people with the highest medical expenses are a major financial burden for anyone paying those premiums ... while the people with the lowest medical expenses have to be naïve enough to pick up the cost of much higher premiums.
I don't see a solution to this that could pass muster with any voting demographic large enough to make it feasible.
Stop right there. There is no such thing as “guaranteed health care”. How do you force someone else to cure you? Even if you went back in time, you could not force Jesus to perform a miracle?
Under ObamaCare, if you get sick, the only guarantee is that you will die.
Dr Ben Carson has the plan all fleshed out. It will be the structure upon which the new system will be developed.
Health savings account from birth; teach poor responsibility
Carson’s idea for health-care reform is Washingtonian. Instead of the technocratic behemoth of Obamacare, empower the individual. “When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health-savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you’re born till the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members . . . and there’s nobody talking about death panels.”
Much of Obamacare may go away or dramatically change, however, the additional taxes are here to stay.
The Democrats drafted, made corrupt bargains, wheeled and dealed, and passed ObamaCare, the grandchild of Hillary Clinton, all by themselves. It was signed and implemented by a Democrat President of infamous ineptitude.
The Republicans were excluded from drafting it, got no wheels or deals, voted against it universally, had no role in implementing it, and intend to make condemning it a central issue in the 2014 elections. Numerous Republican governors balked at implementing it. Republicans have argued cases against it all the way to the Supreme Court.
What is your purpose in pretending that the above are equal? It’s like saying that (Satanic serial killer) Richard Ramirez and Otis from the Andy Griffith Show are equally criminals.
ic senators have come up with a plan to offer consumers more choices, spur competition and increase affordability try not to loose their seats in November.
FYI - Romney passed a state law in a Blue State. Easily adjustable or repealable, does not need Supreme Court authority and is actually affordable. Obama passed a Federal mandated law with unaffordable rates, lies, kickbacks, penalties, waivers, thousands more IRS agents, invasion of privacy, death panels, etc, etc, etc
I agree with your thoughtful comments.
Massive immigration could improve the aging population problem on paper. In reality, it would compound other economic problems, since in aggregate contemporary US immigrants do not produce wealth, but require public subsidies. We can’t make up a loss in volume.
IMHO, our fundamental problem is that too small a percentage of Americans are capable of producing enough wealth to fund their own needs, including health care, at a standard “we” find acceptable. What percentage of workers actually pay taxes equal or more than their own per capita share (including their dependents) of annual US expenditures? 10%? How many actually are capable of subsidizing the aged or funding the commonweal? This is a very corrupting situation, at both ends of the income scale, which politicians would be loath to relinquish.
The social, educational, and fiscal reforms needed to fix this trap are difficult, and, as you suggest, impossible politically. So the Democrats will demonize and eventually expropriate the rich (well, the unconnected rich — they’ll exempt their cronies somehow and give us a class of oligarchs including themselves), liquidating investment for short term consumption, leaving a desert behind. It is sad to see this play out. We live in interesting times.
I'm also taken by how well the media clouds the issue and keeps the truth of the socialist aspects hidden. I've visited websites in different states and found two things that I can't pinpoint:
1. -It looks like those who have poverty level incomes will get free insurance which is paid for by those who pay premiums. But the real discriminatory penalty seems to be that someone paying $6 or $7,000 a year will have a deductible over $5,000, meaning they will pay cash for most (if not) all of their medical expenses.
Yet at the same time, the guy with no premium also gets by with no deductible, so he rides totally for free. Am I seeing this wrong?
2. -If I am seeing this wrong and there is a deductible in some states for the lowest income policy holder they are going to be surprised to get a bill for the stitches on their cut leg, or their broken wrist. The low income guy who gets treated in emergency after a weekend brawl is going to be hounded with bill collectors and his credit rating will be another deterrent for potential employers if a job market ever materializes. Hope and change rides again...
We are about to see some serious complaining and demonstration with these users finding out they don’t have insurance when they try to get treated. They don’t have insurance because the government hasn’t followed through on payment for the policies or whatever little they have to pay has not been paid, or it has not been acknowledged.
This will be followed by gradual withdrawal of any doctor or hospital worth its salt from these subsidized policies. They will identify which insurers, which types of policies, and which type of ‘patient’ (i.e., a subsidized leech)they need to steer clear of.
This will all push for a “mend it, don’t end it” effort which RINOs will wholeheartedly adopt and embrace. In the end we’ll end up with single payer (government) and we will be left at their mercy (ideologically, politically and physically)