(new additional commentary has been posted 09/30/2013 at http://www.beerswithourfoundingfathers.com/3/post/2013/09/the-affordable-care-act-is-bad-medicine.html
The ‘Affordable Care Act’ is Bad Medicine
Today is the last day of free market capitalist healthcare. Our healthcare system, as a whole, has flaws. Because our healthcare system consists of the consumer, provider and insurer – the flaws are not easily resolved, nor are they resolved when each component is more damaged in the socialized transformation that is ObamaCare.
Having health insurance is not the only answer. Having a health plan and a reformed healthcare system, without government intrusion into our personal lives and economic overreach is what worked in the past. I would suggest those so highly in support of this to look at the history of healthcare in America and the world. Moreover, this ObamaCare is NOT about healthcare or you. If it were, there would not be so many requests and approvals of exemptions. The key to understanding is to be an informed leader and consumer, not a misinformed follower and parasite.
On October 1st the 'roll out' of the healthcare website failed. Six people were able to enroll in the new healthcare exchanges, and it crashed. It the weeks following, many excuses - and no acceptance of responsibility - were given. If you liked your doctor and/or liked your insurance - you were promised to be able to keep it; period. Hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of policies have been canceled in nearly every state. People are being told that they can call or mail in their healthcare exchange enrollment to comply with the individual mandate that looms January 1st. Was this an insurance scam or part of a plan to fail to push the solution of single-payer healthcare? The answer is both. The scam is only in part the insurance companies. Policies could be grandfathered if they met the healthcare act and did not have a change in premium. However, for most to be healthcare act compliant required a change in premium. That is the scam -- and intent -- of the healthcare act (failure). The insurance scam is pretty simple - if they don't want to insure, raise premiums by at least $5.
In Congressional testimony, HHS Secretary Sebelius testified that 95% of the people had coverage acceptable under the healthcare act. She also testified that policies meeting such requirements would be grandfathered, so long as there were no changes to the policy or premiums - by more than $5. If current healthcare worked for 95% of the people - why did it need 'reformed'? If it worked for 95% of the people - why upend it? If it worked for 95% of the people - why 'mandate' it for everyone?
If current healthcare worked for 95% of the people - why did it need 'reformed'? If it worked for 95% of the people - why upend it? If it worked for 95% of the people - why 'mandate' it for everyone?
Because it is not about your healthcare, it is about control of one of the largest economies in the country and your money - your freedoms.
Derailing a Train Wreck
The unions have a five year exemption extension for the NObamacare mandate, and want another five. The president has (unconstitutionally) extended the employer mandate. Between these two that leaves a pretty small percentage of individuals that will be required to have insurance by the end of this year. These individuals will be funding the fully program for all of 2014.
As Pelosi said - they had to pass the bill so we would know what's in it (all part of the translucent administration). Well, its a train wreck - as any person with a 70+ IQ would have been able to figure out.
The House has tried nearly 40 times to repeal it and its predictably fails in the Senate. The House has now passed two bills - one to extend the individual mandate and the other to extend the employer mandate. This is how our Constitution works - Congress passes laws, not the president.
But, the president is determined to 'roll past' these efforts to derail the train wreck (derail a train wreck - that's how bad this NObamacare is). If either or both of these bills pass the Senate (not likely), the president has said he will veto both - because it would be bad for the American people for Congress to extend these mandates.
And people voted, not once - but twice - for this historical One Big Ass Mistake America.
Why is no one questioning the decision by this administration to extend the business employee mandate for health insurance by one year?
The law is very clear - 12/31/2013 all employees must be covered. So, he can just ignore the law?
This law is more than bad - its unconstitutional.
This program is severely - and predictably - underfunded, and always will be. What else is not being said? The INDIVIDUAL mandate remains (it is, after all, the law). That means every individual will be footing the entire bill for a year before businesses do (I think its unconstitutional to require a business or individual to purchase goods or services, but stay with me).
That also means that if you work for an employer that should cover you by the end of this year, but does not - you will still be required to have your own mandated insurance coverage.
Seems fair ... doesn't it?
Congress is not acting fast or strong enough on this - and it will happen with any immigration bill - reform or amnesty. Headline - "If ObamaCare won't be enforced as is, defund it"
Wrong - repeal it. Even if defunded, that does not remove the individual mandate - it would be like defunding the courts, but you still have to obey law; or defund the IRS but you still have to pay taxes.
Repeal NObamacare and abolish the IRS for a non-progressive flat tax.
Congress is not limited to funding or defunding - that is just a method of avoiding a solution - which is what Congress does routinely.
The NObama administration has extended the employer mandate of NObamacare one year.
-- Can a president just disregard and change a law? You should be used to it by now, it has been going on for years.
-- Why the change? Its NOT because businesses have said they need the time. When they said the time frame was undo-able BEFORE passing the law, they were told to deal with it. Its because the costs have skyrocketed and potential enrollment is way down - meaning more are willing to take the penalty (and the penalty will not fund the program).
The NFL, and others, have declined to be involved in promoting it, the health secretary has been running around asking for 'donations' - which is illegal.
If the Republicans don't jump on this new strategy to repeal the program, they are not representing the people. The people did not want it, still don't want it and can't afford it.
The problem is - much of the Republican (GOP) party in Congress has Gotten Obviously Progressive.
Originally posted 05/17/2013
The first component of this new 'healthcare' law is that it will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. A law enforcement agency of unprecedented powers and authorities recently exposed for corruption, whose sole purpose is to enforce revenue collection laws. A police state of healthcare enforcement - an agency with access to both your financial and medical records.
Supporters of nationalized healthcare give a few reasons to rationalize the need and Constitutionality of it (one is not synonymous or reliant upon the other).
Let's take the Commerce Clause. Supporters claim that the federal government has the authority, under this clause, to regulate healthcare. True...but...
To mandate a service - and to enforce and penalize through taxation - is not regulation. Therefore, in my opinion - is unconstitutional within the Commerce Clause.
This healthcare law is not about your health or care - it is about your freedoms and nationalizing one of the world's largest economies - all of the components of healthcare, from the individual to the health insurance companies, from the providers and facilities to the pharmaceutical companies.
Here are some combined excerpts from the book - one of the largest chapters (pages 299 to 324).
The most ridiculous arguments for nationalized healthcare are: 1) By example of requiring automobile insurance if you own a vehicle; and 2) Everyone has a right to healthcare. We are all empowered with the right of self-protection; exercising a right is a choice (and should be a responsible choice) – but never required.
During the course of debate – and opposition – to this healthcare law was a bad analogy played by both sides, required automobile insurance coverage. For all the bad analogies given, what was not given was an accurate analogy of automobile, home and other insurance to healthcare insurance. Imagine what your home or automobile insurance premiums would be if these insurances covered the same as current health insurance, and operated the same way. First, these insurances provide coverage for damages, not elective or preventive maintenance, and they are relatively inexpensive – less than $100 per month each on average, but when damages do occur (call it equal to catastrophic or major medical), they are costly. When was the last time a claim could be submitted for painting a house or a vehicle oil change? Why is it that our medical insurance is expected to cover our physical regular checkups and routine maintenance, or physical appearance improvements?
There is no right, stated or implied anywhere, to healthcare. Look, you will not find it. Can that right be added to our Constitution? Sure – by the process of a Constitutional Convention. Should it? Possibly – only under particular circumstances, such as temporarily only those that are without coverage or unable to be covered; such as reformed Well Fair. For those that are uninsurable – such as terminal diseases, it is only humane to absorb those costs as taxpayers. The reasoning being that financially for any family it would be catastrophic. To not do so would be the equivalent of otherwise shortening a person’s life for financial accommodation.
What is the solution? Simple – return to what worked! No co-pays of $10, but a flat 20/80 split. But, our government cannot have that – how would you control the economy and people? How would you garner continued votes without the nonsense of the right to nationalized healthcare? The solution framework is relatively simple:
- Employers no longer offer health insurance as a benefit, but as an option;
- As an option, employers may choose to subsidize and as an employee benefit, with the terms of the benefit at their discretion as an employee recruitment and retention incentive;
- The insured either pays out-of-pocket or is insured. Two levels of insurance – routine and catastrophic. The former is the 20/80 with a deductible towards catastrophic. This is for medical care, not extraneous options;
- Those uninsured may be treated at an urgent care clinic for non-emergent care. There is no preventive care coverage. They pay a sliding scale on their share of the 20%. This may include their physician. The treatment provider is compensated at the 80% from an enrolled government (taxpayer) funded program or insurance pool;
- Medicare and Medicaid would be the same program criteria with a sliding scale;
- Prescription medications would also be 20/80 with a sliding scale.
It has been noted that healthcare is not a right, but it cannot be ignored that it is a problem in our Country. Many argue that it is a right – that is all they argue, however they cannot support this assertion. In looking at the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I challenge any person to find a healthcare equivalent right. The rights enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights is left to the individual’s choice to exercise. None are required to be exercised. And none, save one, poses any costs to the taxpayers. The closest may be the Sixth Amendment and right to an attorney as a criminal defendant. If healthcare were to be considered a right to be amended to our Constitution, let us provide for a healthcare plan that is similar to the Sixth Amendment. Here is a useful comparison:
Criminal – covers felony charges; and
Healthcare – covers traumatic, major medical and catastrophic.
Criminal – covered by the states; and
Healthcare – covered by the states.
Criminal – fees are set by a state administrator; and
Healthcare – fees are set by a state administrator.
Criminal – providers opt to participate or not;
Healthcare – providers opt to participate or not.
Criminal – defendant must prove being indigent and private option unavailable;
Healthcare – patient must prove being indigent and private option unavailable.
Greed only feeds more greed. If the government truly wanted healthcare for the American people, they would first address the collective monopoly of the insurance companies controlling premiums, treatments and payments. Think of these three in similar terms as the three branches of government – checks and balances. There is no form of checks and balances; therefore the insurance companies operate like a dictatorship to the patients and treatment providers. Unconscionable. The other consideration is the disproportionate qualifications to enroll into the taxpayer funded public assistance of Well Fair. As previously noted in this chapter, a uniform income scale qualification with a Well Fair to work component, and an income adjusted 20% payment by the patient would reduce costs and provide justifiable enrollment.
Order your copy today - be part of the solution, not part of the problem. One way things can be made better - helping each other outside of bureaucracy, instead of relying on the bureaucracy.