Based on things written in Eric Holder’s and Kathleen Sebelius’s Washington Post op-ed, Obamacare can’t even meet the standards they say are Obamacare’s goals. For instance:
Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.
If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.
Some obvious questions leap to mind, starting with If it’s such a crisis, why does “everyone who can afford coverage” need “to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014”? Shouldn’t that be immediately? Why should those that are paying $1,000 more a year have to wait until 2014?
More importantly, why should the federal government be in the business of telling health care shoppers what constitutes “minimum health coverage”? Shouldn’t that be left to the health care shopper, aka the patient, and their physician? Doesn’t it make more sense to leave that decision in the hands of the health care professional and the patient?
This begs a bigger, deeper question: why should the federal government think that a bureaucrat, potentially a thousand miles away, would a) care more about the health care shopper and b) know more about the impending health care decision?
That 60 leftist Democrats think that a guy with a chart knows better for the patient is patently absurd.
It isn’t absurd to think that people who aren’t buying insurance drive up costs on those that do. It’s also incomplete. What Holder and Sebelius don’t mention is that government is driving alot of the cost-shifting by underpaying Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Each time that the hospital, clinic or doctor gets underpaid for a Medicare or Medicaid patient, they have to charge extra for someone covered by private insurance.
The moral of that story is that it isn’t just what you’re told; it’s also what you aren’t being told that costs you.
This statement isn’t true either:
If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it’s essential that everyone have coverage.
Having the state establish a high risk pool, then giving people in that pool a tax credit or deduction to cover the higher premiums would cover people with PEC’s just as efficiently as forcing everyone to buy insurance. The best thing about doing it that way is that there’s no question that it’s constitutional.
The car insurance argument isn’t flimsy. It’s beyond that. First, car insurance is licensed at the state level. Second, the state doesn’t impose 68 mandates on car insurance like Minnesota imposes on health insurance. Third, car insurance is true insurance. It indemnifies the driver against significant risks.
What we call health insurance is essentially prepaid health care. Imagine how expensive car insurance would be if the policies included coverage for tune-ups, changing spark plugs, new tires and brakes or new shocks. Yet that’s precisely what’s mandated by Obamacare.
There’s a list of things that must be covered. Additionally, there’s a provision in the legislation that says there isn’t a limit to the amount of damages that can be collected by the patient.
Simply put, shoving more people onto the system, then telling them that they don’t have to change their health habits one iota and that the government will ‘stick it to the health insurance companies’ is akin to telling people that they don’t need to start living health lifestyles or that they don’t need to be smart health shoppers.
That the Obama administration insists that their system will lower costs while insisting on these things is patently absurd. It’s intellectually insulting, too.
This is before we start dealing with the constitutional questions, things like the ability of the federal government to tell states how they must spend their money, that they must raise taxes (both thanx to Medicaid expansion), whether the federal government can use the ICC to tell people that they must purchase a product or get fined simply as a condition of living in the United States.
Judge Henry Hudson took the right step in saying that he wouldn’t go where other courts have refused to go. Like I said in this post, it’s a giant step in the direction of sanity.
Unfortunately, the things written in Eric Holder’s and Kathleen Sebelius’s op-ed are a step in the opposite direction.