Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Obamacare Decision Means for You
Capitol Confidential ^ | 7/2/2012 | Jack McHugh

Posted on 07/05/2012 3:51:04 PM PDT by MichCapCon

The real question before the Supreme Court in the "Patient Protection Act" challenge was: Does a Constitution restricting government to limited and enumerated powers actually mean anything, or are we now subject to the whims of temporary majorities elected to Congress?

It’s hard to read this decision as anything but the latter. The primary constraints on federal power now are political, not legal. For Americans, the world has changed.

What do the law's provisions mean for you?

For starters, employer-provided insurance is an endangered species. For political reasons, the penalty the law imposes on employers who don’t provide insurance was made much lower than the cost of insurance, which will now be much higher due to the law’s insurance policy coverage mandates. This means it will make much more sense for employers to just drop their coverage and let employees go to the government "exchange" for insurance.

So, pretty soon you will probably get your insurance through that government exchange. It will offer a limited selection of government-approved "Cadillac" policies — from a base-level Cadillac to a loaded version — at very high prices.

Because the cost will be so high, families with incomes up to four times the poverty level will get a subsidy, the exact amount depending on how much you earn. The exchange will look up your income information in the IRS database and determine your subsidy. You will have to pay the unsubsidized amount, or else not obtain coverage and pay a penalty, called a "tax" under the Supreme Court's ruling.

Once you have that Cadillac policy, your incentive will be to use as much health care as you can, and make no effort at all to seek the best deal. That’s not too different from the status quo, unfortunately, except insurance companies’ ability to manage those costs is sharply curtailed by limits the law imposes on their administration costs. All this is why this new entitlement’s costs will be so much higher than advertised.

How much more? Easily two or three times the advertised "trillion dollars over 10 years" price — and maybe much more than that. When Medicare was created in 1965, it was projected to cost $12 billion by 1990. In fact it was $107 billion. There’s no reason to expect anything different with this new entitlement.

Because such levels of spending are unsustainable, the law authorizes various forms of health care rationing, and will generate many more. Direct rationing will be imposed through an Independent Payment Advisory Board, the so-called "death panel,” whose decisions are almost impossible even for Congress to challenge.

Indirect rationing will occur through the almost inevitable "lowballing" of reimbursements paid to health care providers, as is done now under Medicare and Medicaid: It's the politicians' first response when costs skyrocket out of control.

Providers will respond in turn with, among other things, longer waiting times to get treatment, which is the norm in other countries with government-run health care systems. This is the reason there’s a good deal of “medical tourism” from Canadians forced to wait two years or more for things like hip replacements and other procedures, often in great pain.

Many Americans may eventually be forced to do the same. Wait-times have also grown in Massachusetts, which imposed the prototype for Obamacare several years ago.

TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: obamacare

1 posted on 07/05/2012 3:51:17 PM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Springman; Sioux-san; 70th Division; JPG; PGalt; DuncanWaring
I guess it depends on what Rick Michigan decides is good for us.

If anyone wants to be added to the Michigan Cap Con ping list, let me know.
2 posted on 07/05/2012 3:59:52 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Let's take a look at Medicare. It's a good example of what's wrong with the system.

I paid into it for years....years and years. When I turned 65....wham....they took $96 a month out of my SS check for a medical premium. Of course, it doesn't cover everything, so I have to purchase a supplement.

And of course now....all SS payments will be electronic giving government access to your account.

3 posted on 07/05/2012 4:01:25 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
The primary constraints on federal power now are political, not legal.

Bye, bye freedom!

And I'm being realistic not sarcastic.

We can replace our best rotating oil drills with 250 year old colonial grave hardware and triple our oil output now.

4 posted on 07/05/2012 4:05:45 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
It will mean that the government will tell you which of their government doctors you must see. So you will lose freedom of choice in what doctor(S) treat you.If you don't like that doctor or if the doctor is an incompetent cretin( you can bet that happens a lot in government agencies just think of a high school principle or department of motor vehicles worker): well then you are screwed. Democrats are Roberts are for this and also the 13,000 pages of government regulations and control. Amazing.

Not to mention this Obamacare will turn the U.S.A into a socialist country . Socialism/government doesn't work. Why don't democrats including Roberts, Obama, Reid, Pelosi see this?

5 posted on 07/05/2012 4:20:05 PM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Simple really. It means everyone pays in, no one but the ruling elite get actual 'care'.
6 posted on 07/05/2012 4:26:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

Healthcare will be precisely like many of the various states workers compensation programs. Have a friend who had a very serious otj injury. Initial denial of course, then doctor resubmitting medical findings, then allowed claim but denied doctor recommended treatment, met with WC doctor, tried his treatment, didn’t work, blah blah blah. One and a half year later, another WC doctor finally approved what the first doctor wanted to do in the first place.

7 posted on 07/05/2012 4:36:46 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon
Everyone is missing the point on healthcare reform. The point is that more than 50% of the population of America did not have their interests represented in the discussion and formation of Obamacare. This is grossly unfair.

If insurance reform is what you want then it can't be entrusted to just one political party. The result is chaos and confusion and the opposition party will just dig its heels in deeper.

Democrats politicians, laywers, and lobbyists met behind closed doors and brought forth a mammoth 2500 page document we "had to pass it to find out what is in it." This is insurance reform? Please!. I wouldn't trust only Republicans with the task of healthcare reform. I certainly don't trust Democrats.

Reform, if you want it, needs to be a joint effort of Dems and Repubs working together, with no lobbyists and as few lawyers as possible. Both sides need to understand they may not get everything they want.

Reform, if you want it, needs to be a national effort not unlike the 1960s when JFK challenged America to walk on the moon by the end of the decade. Healthcare reform may well span several administrations. I don't know.

I do know that this back and forth of which party has the better reform plan is just political theater.

8 posted on 07/05/2012 4:38:59 PM PDT by GSWarrior (Democrats have finally figured out how to tax the air that you breathe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

They are indeed “legal”..and thats precisely what the Second Amendment enshrine the cartridge box as a legitimate alternative as the soapbox and ballot box cease effectiveness.

That’s the reality of the Second. It is the ultimate affirmation of man’s God gifted freedom.

the run at the Second...hard..has just begun.

9 posted on 07/05/2012 5:58:14 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rurgan
Socialism/government doesn't work. Why don't democrats including Roberts, Obama, Reid, Pelosi see this?

The "Elite" in socialist systems do very well for themselves while the masses suffer. They all know exactly what they are doing.

10 posted on 07/05/2012 8:38:38 PM PDT by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Without the Tyrannical abomination known as the 16th Amendment to enable it, neither the "progressive" income tax (a central plank of the Communist Manifesto) nor the ACA's individual mandate (a non-apportioned direct tax) could exist at the federal level in America.

If there was ever any doubt, the 16th Amendment has now been exposed for the trojan horse which it has always been. It is effectively a gaping breach that was opened in the Constitution which grants Congress virtually unlimited power, under the guise of taxation. It is an open invitation to making We the People abject slaves to our federal government, and it has always represented such a threat.

Accordingly, if the People want to remove this power from the federal government (and we should) then the 16th Amendment MUST be repealed. In the interim, the People should take the initial step of removing from office all those traitors who have dared to blatantly exercise such arbitrary power, starting with the November 2012 elections.

Notwithstanding the ruling, Chief Justice Roberts could have joined Scalia et al to overturn the sloppily written and dishonestly passed ACA, and I believe this is what he should have done. Instead, for whatever reasons, he chose to become activist and rewrite or reinterpret the ACA into a Constitutional format, which was, regrettably, within his judicial purview.

Regardless, it should now be clear to all that the 16th Amendment is entirely incompatible with the concept of limited government, and it always has been. Roberts has simply shrewdly exposed this fact for our edification, and I hope the People are aware enough to vote accordingly in November.

11 posted on 07/05/2012 9:58:33 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson