Now that the Supreme Court has ruled The Affordable Health Care Act constitutional, it’s time to sift through the embers of one of the great political wildfires of our time and figure out what has survived.
As the political junkie of my social circle, a lot of people have been asking me questions about (the so-called) “Obamacare;” questions like:
“Does this mean Obamacare has passed?”, and:
“When can we expect the government to come to my grandmother’s house to kill her? She makes wonderful pierogies and I would like to have them once more before she’s gone.”
The answers to those questions, of course, are:
1) "Obamacare passed as a law long time ago, and that the Supreme Court’s decision merely validated it as legal under our constitution," and:
2) “Probably a week from Thursday.”
Obviously this law is confusing to a lot of people if it makes them suddenly forget the middle school skills of researching for facts, and/or how a bill becomes a law. But, I can totally understand that people might be confused by what happened with this particular law; so, in case you are someone who’s still a little in the dark about what “Obamacare” is, and what it means to you, I thought I’d take it upon myself to assist in clearing the air about this bill.
First of all, if you already have insurance from your workplace, the law probably won’t affect you much; and the ways in which it will affect you are probably beneficial. The law includes a “Patient’s Bill of Rights,” which provides coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, protects your choice of doctors, allows young adults to stay on their parents’ coverage until they turn 26, forces insurance companies to justify rate hikes, and ends lifetime limits on coverage. If you’re interested in reading up on these positive portions of the bill, I’ve provided a reference here.
Secondly, if you don’t have health care insurance, you’ll be required to buy it, or you’ll suffer a tax penalty. It's an individual penalty, not a tax increase on all of us. This is expected to only (possibly) affect a total of 7 million Americans. But how much of a penalty? Well, the government will first offer you vouchers to help pay for a plan if you need assistance getting on your feet, and the penalty will never be more than the cost of a basic plan. But if you choose to pay the penalty instead of getting insurance (which means if you have to go to the emergency room all of us as taxpayers are footing your bills for you), it’ll be based on your income. Current estimates say that, in 2014, the minimum penalty for an individual will be $95 a year. Buying coverage for the year for that individual is estimaed at about $4,500 a year. Oh, and if you decide to lie on your taxes and say you have insurance when you don’t, or just decide not to pay it? There’s really no mechanism set in place to stop you for now, other than maybe the IRS suing you for twice the amount. But shhhhh….!
“But Patrick,” you may ask, “all of those sound like really helpful and/or boring things; why is there so much anger and fervor over the bill, then? Certainly there must be incredible negatives to the bill if people are willing to dress up like Revolutionary War-era soldiers and hold up signs labeling the President a Nazi!”
And, to that, I respond with: “Well, of course. Obviously there is substance to that argument, and those people must be correct in comparing our President to Adolf Hitler. After all, Hitler is responsible for the genocide of 6 million people, and President Obama is trying to save 30-50 million people from being uninsured. There’s an obvious connection between Obama and Hitler—both of those statements use the word MILLION.”
But there’s more, dear reader. They’ve also uncovered the following provisions, which are also part of the bill. And these are 100% true, because modern day Republicans have no reason to make things up about Obamacare, as they are thoughtful, well-informed individuals with no penchant or reputation whatsoever for simply making up lies out of thin air in an effort to confuse the public into voting for them:
Death Panels: Sarah Palin caused quite the row in 2009 when she brilliantly uncovered President Obama’s plan to set up a panel of people to decide whether or not to allow health coverage to people based on their “productivity to society.” These panels will be staffed by people dressed as Roman emperors, who will give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down as to whether or not you will be allowed to live under the fascist Obamacare system. And it’s a good thing that Palin herself uncovered this part of the bill, because it’d probably be a close vote as to whether or not Sarah Palin has done anything productive in her entire life.
A Government Takeover of Health Care: Republicans also uncovered the fact that the government is taking over the health care system. They’re not assisting in setting up monitored insurance exchanges to help the already-privatized health care companies drive down prices to the consumer—oh, no. They’re going to unleash their super-dragon, GovZilla, out to smash and destroy Blue Cross Blue Shield, punishing them for succeeding as a small business.
Government ID Chips: Emails have been circulating reminding people of the provision of Obamacare which requires all citizens to be implanted with a microchip connected to their bank accounts, including children. That’s the bad news. The good news is the microchips have two gigabytes worth of storage so you can listen to your favorite Nickelback album without digging out your iPod.
As always, I hope I’ve helped. Although the law probably won’t impact most of you, I hope I’ve provided some useful information about it anyway.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going over to my grandma’s. It’s pierogi night.
Once the gov't controls our choices rather than a 'free market' we become more and more limited and insolvency of the program is inevitable as with all gov't programs. Proper market components in place the buyer has control and can influence the type of coverage they 'own'. With the government in control, we are at the mercy of bureaucrats and a congress which panders first to itself, then panders for votes. That evolves into more taxes and less choice. The present system is lousy. The ACA is lousy. Where are the thinkers who actually address the problems in the present system and offer solutions to them without making us victims of tyranny?
I don't know that I would scream "fire" in a movie theater, but I do love a good discussion. And, if I can facilitate that, well... so be it. In my defense, I hope I at least also have a reputation for not insulting anyone personally by calling them names; which is more than I can say for a few people involved in these discussions.
But that young woman wants you to pay her way...so she can do as she pleases when she pleases. I absolutely do not want ANY one to go without basic needs. Even that young woman referenced above. But, if we have a large population with this mindset...what is happening to this country? I can't afford vacations. I wear jeans every day. I buy store brands rather than name brands in the supermarket. My pick up truck is a 1979 chevy and my car is a 2002 Saturn Vue. My son bought me my IMac and my Iphone. I am elderly and I work part time. And I am thankful for everything that I have. But...you (the taxpayer) didn't give it to me.
bottom line of the market solution argument - health care ins and providers dont want to compete. they will not participate in competitive activities until forced to do so.
The ACA doesn't control our choices rather it mandates pricing and how coverage is returned from premiums. It prevents coverage from being retroactively denied and it puts an end to the profiteering of our health care system by the insurance companies. Any of this information could have been obtained here: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html With regards to where we sit when compared against the other countries you're trying to slam the healthcare systems of, we come in dead last when compared to them. According to this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623 The most updated study which is referenced in the article can be found here: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Surveys/2011/Nov/2011-International-Survey.aspx Where are you getting these horror stories about having to wait in ridiculous lines to get health care in countries like Canada and The United Kingdom? That's right! It came from this guy: http://www.flgov.com/meet-governor-scott/ Florida Gov. Rick Scott who made his fortune profiteering healthcare, was dismissed from his position at Columbia Hospital Corporation over fraud allegations from the FBI and runs Conservatives For Patient Rights which has opposed the ACA since before the details of the bill were even made public to the tune of $10 mil USD. CHC now merged with HCA is the largest operator of for profit healthcare facilities in the world.
Here is the Head Line: "THOUSANDS COULD LOSE THEIR SIGHT AS NHS CUTS CATARACT SURGERY BY A QUARTER." I could refer you to actual Canadians coming herE for surgery, I could refer you to an ingrown toenail in Britain waiting more than 6 mos for treatment. I don't read someone else's opinion or biased main stream media. If you want more...I will get it. I was working in Oxford, England for a summer. I woke up one morning with a painful crimp in my back. I went to the Radcliffe Hospital. I waited about 3 hours, was never seen, gave up and went back to my university room with some self purchased over the counter pain med. YES, YES YES...other countries have health care for 'all'. But they also have limitations in access and choice and quality.... Yes, lets compromise the quality of medical care we now can avail ourselves of to provide for the 30 million/10% of the population which has no insurance. There just has to be another way to do this. Faustian Bargain. I just hope your progeny doesn't come to the point of encountering the disaster heading our way. But some will, inevitably. I just can't comprehend this mind set.
As to the way private insurance deals with people...yes yes yes...this needs to be changed and the adoption of some of the ACA premises should be enforced on these enterprises. But why didn't we try that, among other things before we were sent into the morass? Congress sure has sure as heck exempted themselves from the ACA along with half the unions across the USA. Tell me...if it is so GREAT...why isn't EVERY citizen required to abide by the ACA rules and regulations? Can YOU opt out? Can I opt out? I just don't get it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9365881/Hospital-closures-inevitable-and-NHS-operation-rationing-will-continue-warns-think-tank.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9395071/Patient-dies-and-hundreds-harmed-after-appointment-delays.html http://www.canadaupdates.com/content/more-canadians-ready-move-abroad-medical-treatment-16512.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2124039/Disabled-man-collapses-refused-treatment-NHS-walk-centre-forced-NHS-hotline-help.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210837/NHS-sack-staff-management-consultants-20billion-cuts.html And so forth.
I don't depend on blogs for facts, only opinions. Wikipedia says the Daily Mail has endorsed some conservative and some liberal positions as the editorial stance has been a mixed bag (being critical of Tony Blair, for instance).
Is that REALLY biased reporting or informing the public...really now, Debbie! LOL!
Secondly from your own source: "Mr Burnham said: ‘David Cameron promised not to cut the NHS, but he’s now cut it two years running. ‘His unnecessary £3billion re-organisation threw it into chaos and we’re now seeing crude random rationing across the system. ‘Older people shouldn’t be made to pay with their independence and quality of life." The NHS is being forced to ration healthcare because the conservative Prime Minister and First Lord of Treasury has continually slashed funding to the NHS. Did you read the entire article at all or did you stop at "Thousands could lose their sight as NHS cuts cataract surgery by a quarter"? This problem isn't a product of the NHS. This is a product of the conservatives in Parliament slashing funding to social welfare programs such as the NHS. As for referring me to actual Canadians coming here for surgery, you say you could but you haven't which makes me already wonder about the integrity of your source since you clearly didn't check the first one thoroughly and only seem to have bothered reading the headline. Faustian Bargain? Really? Are you serious? What's next? Sophie's Choice? Pandora's Box? Just because your red herring uses and educated context doesn't make it any less a red herring. I'll wait patiently for these actual Canadians.
"Up to five units which currently provide major surgery to sick infants born with congenital heart problems will be ordered to shut down or merge with larger units after new safety standards are published this week." Please read more than the headline.This is a safety measure to ensure that surgeons performing surgeries are better qualified. They aren't talking about removing services, just about restructuring them to provide better and safer care to patients. If you had read farther you would see that this action is supported by most. The major theme you are missing in all of these articles is that The Right Honourable, Mr. Cameron and his part are responsible for slashing billions of GBP in funding from the NHS. You're trying to blame the NHS for having its funding slashed rather than the people who slashed it. That's like blaming your skin for itching instead of the mosquito that bit you. While I can certainly admire your zeal it's clear that you are not well educated at all on this subject and the best that can be hoped for out of you is to repeat conservative talking points which are not in fact..well, fact. I've come to expect more from the historical alumni of OSU than this.
Mr. Womack...that is what happens when something is run by the government. When funds get tight in a nation they have to slash somewhere...or at least they are supposed to, rationing would be the natural result, less care for fewer people, natural result. And...that will happen here in time to come. We are already over spent in Medicare and SS. http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/02/canadian_premier_has_heart_sur.html http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Health-Care-Reform/Canadian-Health-Moves-Private-As-USA-Goes-Socialist.html And...there are numerous specialized in 'health care' travel agencies in Canada which do all the negotiating for you with medical specialists and centers, along with arranging your hotel or housing while getting your care outside of Canada. Do you want me to find some of those agencies just to prove it to you?
Those docs and that administrative staff got their salaries no matter what. It just so happened their incompetence was discovered and d/t public outcry they got shut down. But not until after a bunch of dead babies! Go ahead an pooh pooh it... but it should never have happened in the first place.
Not sure why you and many others think that having universal healthcare in the US will end up like that of Viet Nam. It's the narcissistic attitudes of you and your kind that are ruining the greatness of this country. You don't think that we can take the lessons learned from other countries and implement a better universal healthcare system here in the USA? You automatically believe that universal healthcare in the US will become = to 3rd world care.
As John Roberts Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said in his decision on the ACA: "Its not our job (scotus) to protect people from the consequences of their political choices."
And that, my friend is what leads to rationing and third rate health care. And it's 'Coming to your town soon'. Mark my words. Amazing that you can't make that connection! LOL! By the way....I DID verify the Canadian exodus to the USA and other countries for health care. I DID verify the existence of rationing and poor care in the various 'universal' health care nations. Even the Premier of Newfoundland andLabrador (Canada) came to the US for his surgery (reported by a left leaning USA news organization).
Geeze..you jump to the ad hominem attack, and YOU are a 'good humanity loving' liberal with nothing but love and kindness in your heart. The way you guys look at the ACA is you see nothing but the shiny Rolls Royce exterior. You forget to lift the hood where you will find a Model T engine.
The accounting firm of Ernst and Young did a study and claims that the proposed tax increase will cause the USA to lose in the range of 700,000 jobs. Your reasoning as to the tax 'cuts' being the cause of eliminating the 'surplus' is seriously in error. Take a genuinely closer look at the reality. Now I agree with you the 2 Bush terms did us no favors economically. The wars did have to be paid for...along with the ridiculous prescription drug fix for Medicare...it didn't fix a thing and costs us. As to the big 'bugaboo' of OUTSOURCING, Obama's personal financial portfolio shows his investment in companies which outsource to be about 40%. For example he is invested in Vanguard 500 Index Funds which hold: GE (out sourcing to India), Apple (manufacturing overseas), and IBM (foreign workers account for 71% of its 400,000 employees). So Axelrod and his cronies should cut the 'outsourcing' crap.
<a href="http://www.city-tutors.co.uk/subjects-we-teach/gcse/geography"><b>Geography Tuition</b></a>