Posted on 10/30/2016 7:45:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
We are almost there, folks! November 8th will end this miserable election cycle and determine our fate for the next four years. If you have not already voted and are still thinking about which presidential candidate or party to support, you should focus like a laser on the one issue of the many important ones in this election: Obamacare.
Unfortunately, as this election focused more on personal characteristics and irrelevant comments, the principal legislation of the past eight years has been largely ignored as an election issue. While the plan continues to alter the healthcare landscape in a major way and premiums soar, we have barely confronted the future of our healthcare as a country, but there is still time for you to focus your vote on it.
You need not be reminded that serious Democratic politicians have called the plan into question. Everyone saw the video of former President Bill Clinton calling it “the craziest thing in the world.” He stated before that “where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half."
But he was not the only Democrat to take issue with Obamacare. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton stated Obamacare is “no longer affordable to increasing numbers of people.” Even Obama went after his namesake legislation. He compared the healthcare plan to the Samsung Note 7. “Just because it catches on fire does not mean you should desert smartphones.” Translation: It is a disaster, but trust the government to make it better.
And that is a reasonable position, if you are Hillary Clinton. She wants to fix the program. It is not just that she wants to fix it, but how she wants to fix it. She wants to take our healthcare system to the next step – what has bucolically been named the “public option.” That means if your state has only one or two health insurance options, the government will step in and offer another. The public option will lowball the premiums and co-pays and soon drive private insurance out of your state. Your only option will soon be government insurance. Clinton has also suggested we could buy into Medicare (a broke system) which has not been explained. Either way, the course Clinton and the Democrats offer is more government control for you and me (not for them).
Then there are the major effects that this act is setting in that may never be reversible. There is the consolidation as hospitals buy up other hospitals and hospitals buy up medical practices. We are losing private practice physicians as they join up with hospitals to eradicate the immense risk generated by Obamacare and the mountains of paperwork. Fifty-seven percent of doctors ran their own practices in 2000; that figure is down to 33% as of 2015.
You cannot even reach a doctor anymore. I had to call a specialist for a problem I was having with my knee. He was independent and is now part of Cedars-Sinai, a major hospital operation in Los Angeles. It took me 20 minutes just to make an appointment. It then took me 18 minutes to cancel the appointment when my knee improved. The end is near for anyone getting personalized care in America. Obamacare is destined to bring us all down to the lowest common denominator.
Then there is the cost. The plan my wife and I have increased over 50% in cost the last few years. To keep the premiums from soaring we increased our deductible from the very high $6,000 total to $6,000 for each of us. The increase planned for next year adds another 20%.
As you know it has been announced that the average premium increase for Obamacare across 39 states is 25%. But that is a highly misleading figure. If you read the report offered by HHS, it is a puff piece for Obamacare. If this was an offering memorandum for an investment the promoters would be jailed.
After telling people all the ways they can possibly save under the new numbers for 2017, they finally get to the chart on page 34 that shows the state-by-state breakdown of increases. The numbers in this chart and all the others are based on a 27-year-old policyholder. The problem is there are few 27-year-old policyholders. Most everyone agrees that is why the plans are failing. In fact, another report stated that only a third of the policyholders were in the age bracket 0-34 years old.
The question is what are the average increases for people actually in the plan – like 54-year-olds. They don’t tell us that because you can bet the house the average is higher. When Trump said the numbers are ginned, I am not sure he knew how badly they are ginned.
When I spoke to the Office of Health Policy (HHS) I asked two simple questions. First, how did they decide to use a 27-year-old as a policyholder? Second, what was the average cost increase for a 54-year-old? They refused to answer either question.
HHS argues that the vast majority of people on the healthcare exchanges will get subsidies that will limit their out-of-pocket expenses. They forget to talk about two things. First, the exploding deductibles that people are having to pay. Second, the exploding federal deficit from underwriting the higher subsidies.
The report finishes its opening summary with the statement, “This brief shows that the Affordable Care Act is continuing to promote affordability and choice in the Marketplace for plan year 2017.” Everyone knows that insurance companies have been pulling out of states left and right. The report later makes clear 20% of people in the plans will have only one healthcare company to choose from. That means zero competition. Where is the choice?
Then there is Obama’s distorted manipulation about 20 million people covered. I have written before this entire matter could have been handled by expanding Medicaid. There are 11 million more people on that, but the other 9 million that Obama claims are people who just normally got insurance from employers during the period. The percentage of people under 65 who have private health insurance is still lower in 2015 (65.8%) than it was in 2007 (66.8%). That means any real increase in people with coverage is being subsidized by the government.
And, of course, I will say for the hundredth time, getting health insurance does not mean getting healthcare. There are no more doctors, nurses or hospitals to provide services. In fact, a slew of experienced doctors retired rather than deal with this mess. In fact, only about 25% of doctors will accept Medicaid patients.
If you believe that the new system is working and can be improved, you should vote for Hillary Clinton. If you believe the system is dysfunctional and is only going to get worse you should vote for Donald Trump.
To quote a famous American, “Affordable, Affordable, Affordable, Affordable, Affordable. Affordable.”
1) Supreme Court,
2) Economy, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,
3) National Debt.,
4) Immigration
5) National Defense
6) Divided Nation
I disagree.
I am 100% for Trump, have been since before he even announced his candidacy.
But Obamacare has no competition from our side. What we had before Obamacare was an expensive mess.
Trump is saying repeal AND REPLACE Obamacare.
But we need to replace it with something equally as good for Americans.
What we had before was an expensive, exclusive mess, which left millions of Americans without coverage.
Not good at all.
Do you mean the Affordable Care Act? Maybe was a mistake to tag it with a name that the media insists has high favorables.
They are:
1) Borders. The People's laws, made by our representatives, are not being enforced. No borders, no nation.
2) War.
3) Jobs in the harvesting of raw materials and their manufacture into valuable products.
What ties these 3 together is Globalism vs. Nationalism. How we pay for medical and nursing services is a triviality (although the damage Obama and his minions have deliberately caused is non-trivial). A national government which represented the People and was not composed of traitors and enemies could and would produce a functioning and viable medical care system in 60 days.
Clinton's absolute "Progressive" insistence on promoting the "destroying" of human life in the womb must be challenged.
Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
The sole reason these rights are "unalienable" is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government by legislative, executive, or judicial decision.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: Hillary Clinton is committed to the Progressive agenda on this matter, and that agenda is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.
amen
You are of course completely correct. What we had “before” was a Crony capitalist system dominated by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, medical conglomerates, lobbyists, lawyers, and etc... All of these parties were more than happy to grab for the increased dollars from the federal government and mandated increases in what consumers have been forced to pay.
What Obamacare needs to be replaced with is a medical system with complete transparency and a return to capitalistic principals so that consumers can once again make informed decisions about their healthcare choices. And this uninformed over-reliance on insurance companies needs to be ditched. Insurance companies have one legitimate purpose and that is to protect financial assets. Having health insurance has no statistical connection with anyone’s health. People with few assets who choose not to carry health insurance have been shown in study after study to be healthier on average than those who purchase health insurance.
The people who should be making health care decisions are the people themselves and their doctors not insurance company executives, government bureaucrats, pharmaceutical company executives, lobbyists and lawyers. As you say they have had their day and managed to make a giant mess of the system.
IMO, you have correctly identified our strategic goal.
I would argue, however, that in addition to electing a qualified leader who can develop a workable plan to reach that goal, we have an immediate need to exercise every opportunity to properly shape the USSC or at least not let its current shape drift closer to globalism.
The Supreme Court far outweighs Obamacare as a critical issue.
The Supreme Court far outweighs Obamacare as a critical issue.
I agree 100%, actually that is the one and only reason I’m voting for Trump and that is it. Outside of that I detest him.
I am 100% Pro-life. Ask a liberal this, “when does this baby have rights, the 1st or 2nd time it was born?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/10/26/the-baby-who-was-born-twice/
Selfishly, I can see Obamacare sitting as #1.
But for the future of the Nation I love and the future of my grandchildren that I selfishly love even more, the #1 reason to vote President Trump is the Supreme Court of the United States.
#1 SCOTUS
Immigration is the only single issue that matters at this time. Without an end to immigration, legal and illegal, no progress will ever be made on any of the other important issues: abortion, 1st and 2nd amendment issues, supreme court, taxes, foreign policy, etc.
Fortunately, if any ONE of those is your single issue, you will vote for the same person as someone who has the correct view on any of the others.
TRUMP!
Maybe this what the author is hinting at?
Besides I wouldn't vote for Hillary Rotten Clinton anyway, neither would I vote for a third party candidate.
I agree that the Courts should be the primary reason. The others can be swapped around without upsetting anyone.
I like the list as any one of them are signicant grounds to vote Trump/Pence on any one of the items.
Together - LandSlide
***** Obamacare isn’t in the top ten. *****
Maybe not for you, but it’s in the top 2 for my family.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.