Skip to comments.What's Wrong With ObamaCare? Here's A Partial List
Posted on 06/29/2012 6:06:15 PM PDT by Kaslin
Repeal: After a full day's reflection, we still feel that the ObamaCare ruling is an outrage. And while we acknowledge that it's now settled law, we believe that it's poor public policy and needs to be expunged from the books.
We're still nettled by the Supreme Court ruling that ObamaCare's individual mandate can stand constitutionally as a tax when Congress failed to define the penalty for failing to buy health insurance that way. But we can do nothing about that. The court has spoken.
What we can do, with an eye toward repeal, is point out just how malignant the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is.
We began this exercise on Friday, when we wrote about ObamaCare's hidden taxes. The law imposes at least 21 new or higher levies that will cost trillions. That's too much to demand of hard-pressed taxpayers.
New taxes aren't the only rising burden under ObamaCare. Far from being a law that will cut costs, it will increase them.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
But but the republicans say ObamaCare is a win for “conservatism”.
.....and Conservatives say otherwise.
Some republican pundits, I should say.
The country does need medical reform, but not Obungacare.
The size of obungacare indicates to me that it is about power and not about health care. Likewise Mark Steyn notes that the job of director or head of public health has become the biggest govt. job in European countries which have public health care i.e. it would be a step upwards from PM or President or King or Grand Duke or anything else to head of health care. In other words, European health care is ultimate bureaucracy. If I had the power to I would institute a sort of a basic health care reform which would be overwhelmingly simple and which would resemble the thing we're reading about in no way, shape, or manner. Key points would be:
1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice. The non-inbred system would be a tribunal composed not just of oher doctors, but of plumbers, electricians, engineers, and everybody else as well.
2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.
3. Elimination of the factors which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability. That would include both lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and government agencies which force costs into the billions to develop any new drug. There should be no suing a pharmaceutical for any drug which has passed FDA approval and somewhere between thalidamide and what we have now, there should be a happy medium.
4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses or other lifestyle issues.
All of those things would fall under the heading of what TR called "trust busting". There would also be some system for caring the truly indigent, but the need and cost would be far less than at present.
By far the biggest item is that first one. I don't know the exact numbers but if you add every cost involved in our present out-of-control lawyering, it has to be a major fraction if not more than half of our medical costs. The trial lawyers' guild being one of the two major pillars of financial support for the democrat party is the basic reason nobody is saying anything about that part of the problem.
Other than that, you almost have to have seen some of the problems close up to have any sort of a feel for them.
Item 1, this is what I saw in grad school some time ago, although I do not have any reason to think much has changed. In the school I attended, there appeared to be sixty or seventy first year med students walking around and all but one or two of them would have made perfectly good doctors, they were all very bright and highly motivated. The only way the school should have lost any of those kids was either they discovered they couldn't deal with the sight of blood in real life or six months later they changed their minds and went off to Hollywood to become actors or actresses; the school should never have lost more than ten percent of them. But they knew from day one that they were keeping 35% of that class.
That system says that you know several things about the guy working on your body: You know he's a survivor, and that's highly unlikely to be from being better qualified than 65% of the other students; You know he hasn't had enough sleep (he's doing his work and the work of that missing 65%); You know he's probably doing some sort of drugs to deal with the lack of sleep... One of my first steps as "health Tsar" or whatever would be to tell the medical schools that henceforth if they ever drop more than15% of an incoming class, they'll lose their accreditation.
Item 2. My father walks into a pharmacy in Switzerland with a bottle of pills he normally pays $50 for in Fla. and asks the pharmacist if he can fill it. "Why certainly sir!", fills the bottle of pills and says "That will be $3.50." Seeing that my father was standing there in a state of shock, the man says "Gee, I'm sorry, Mr. V., you see, we have socialized medicine in Switzerland and if you were a Swiss citizen and paid into the systemn, why I could sell you this bottle of pills for $1.50 but, since you're foreign and do not pay into the system I have to charge you the full price, certainly you can appreciate that."
The guy thought my father was in shock because he was charging him too MUCH... Clearly whatever needs to be done with drugs amounts to trust busting, and not extracting more money from the American people.
Item 3. A caller to the Chris Plant show (D.C./WMAL) the other morning, an ER nurse, noted that much of the costs which her hospital had to absorb, as do most hospitals, was the problem of people with no resources using the ER as their first and only point of contact to the medical profession. She said that there were gang members who were constantly coming in for repairs from bullet holes and knife damage and drug problems, that they could not legally turn any of those people away, and that there was zero possibility of ever collecting any money from any of them, and that the costs of that were gigantic.
Clearly throwing money at that problems is not going to help anything either. Again if I'm the "Medicine Tsar", those guys would be cared for, but not at the ER or at least not the part of the ER where normal people go, and they would not be first in line. Mostly they'd be dealing with medical students who needed the practice patching up knife and bullet damage.
Here is the problem with Big Government. I have to spend my own precious time learning about a 3000 page health care bill just so I can learn how I am being screwed. I should NOT have to think about FedGov 25/7/365. It is making feel paranoid.....
The real damage is the precedent it sets. Obamacare could eventually be voted out of exsistance, but the tortured logic of it being upheld will last for decades..
Just remember, you can run but you just can't hide from Obamacare.
We need to fight this destructive, job-killing law in the courts, in every venue and from every constitutional perspective. We need to fight this law in the state legislatures to produce laws that will block each and every aspect of ObamaCare to preserve individual freedom and protect state economies. We need to fight this law in the Governor's mansions of each state, to produce executive orders, administrative interpretations, and general obstruction or non-compliance that will kill the law. We need to fight this law in the press, on the Internet, and by word of mouth, so that everyone knows the reason we are not creating new jobs is the economic burden of ObamaCare. We need to fight this terrible, unconstitutional law at the polls in November to elect a conservative Congress to repeal this terrible law and an executive who can be pressured not to veto a repeal. Thsnks to Stimulus, TARP, Cash-for-Clunkers, and the rest of the massive spending of these past four years, the Obama recession has already gone on nearly three years beyond the predicted duration if the federal government had done nothing and been deeper than the worst month of the most pessimistic prediction for almost that entire period, and if we cannot kill ObamaCare, we'll have another economically lost jobless decade.
Settled law? No! As John Paul Jones said in 1779, and as John Roberts could truthfully have said yesterday, "I have not yet begun to fight!" This is the final straw that will destroy America if allowed to stand, and it isn't settled until either the United States of America is dead or the rule of law is restored.
As I predicted, it’s now “Oh well, the Court has ruled; it is settled law. Nothing more we can do” time. All the sunshine patriots advise us to fold our tents, be good little slaves and shut up.
I REFUSE TO BE SILENT. I WILL ABIDE NO ONE WHO REMAINS SILENT. I WILL NOT LISTEN TO ANY WHO URGE COMPLIANCE.
YOU DAMNED LIBERALS WANTED A WAR; YOU’VE GOT ONE NOW.
Well now FedGov is thinking of you and what your doing. When you get the Fed text indication your mandatory enrollment in a federal exercise class to prevent Diabetes...yeah be paranoid.
Perfect! I’ve been saying for a while that the ultimate end of Liberalism is Logan’s Run.
PhonyCare > PhonyClass > PhonyHome > PhonyCenter > Phony Arbeitsziehungslager > PhonyCamp > ___________.
Is the whole thing settled on those issues, or just the mandate? The one possible silver lining I can see from this ruling would be if the fact that nine judges ruled that the mandate wasn't justifiable under the Interstate Commerce clause could be used to attack some part of the legislation which would clearly not be justifiable under the taxing power (not that the mandate actually qualifies as any of the legitimate form of taxation, mind). Since there is no severability clause, kaboom. I've given up on expecting so-called conservatives to do anything that clever, but it would be sweet.
Those issues are settled for the whole thing, but any or all of ObamaCare can be challenged on any issue that has not already been addressed by the Court.
It doeasn't matter. Roberts opened the door for the government to coherce us into anything, despite Constitutional limitations, by merely taxing us until we have no choice but either knuckle under or have all our assets taken from us due to "taxes". He said the mandate, under the guise of Commerce, was un-Constitutional, but instead of dropping it, he allowed them to tax us for non-compliance with the un-Constitutional mandate.