Unintended, but not Unforseen

[cpwill]

particularly poignant article by NRO's editors. As Predicted, this bill is only going to continue to worsen, and we will continue to find new wonderful ways in which it does damage to the American people, their economy, and their health.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, is to the law of unintended consequences what Newton’s apple was to the law of gravity: the illustration that bonks us on the head with its obviousness. Practically every week since its passage has added a new dimension of mirth to Nancy Pelosi’s punchline for the ages, that we had to pass the bill to find out what is in it. Out of the mouths of babes and clueless politicians . . .

And on the subject of babes, they are the latest victims of Obamacare: Health-insurance giants Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, CoventryOne, Humana, and UnitedHealthCare have stopped writing child-only policies in those jurisdictions where they are able to do so. The reason for this is obvious: Because Obamacare forces insurance companies to accept children who are already sick with pre-existing conditions on the same terms as healthy children, parents now have a strong incentive to wait until their children are sick to buy child-only policies, making the products a guaranteed money-loser for insurers, which are not in the business of guaranteeing losses to their investors and employees...

Democrats of late have spent a lot of time engaged in televised scoffing at the idea that regulatory uncertainty is a major cause of our current economic malaise. They would do well to consult the insurers whose businesses they are attempting to micromanage. WellPoint had this to say about its decision to discontinue child-only policies: “Unfortunately, there remains a great deal of uncertainty as to how the rules will be implemented and what the impacts might be on participating insurers.”

Health-insurance rates already are rising even more quickly than they had been in the past because of concern about the costs that will be imposed by Obamacare. Various kinds ofinsurance products and services are being discontinued. Colleges have had to go begging to Washington to be allowed to continue offering the inexpensive, bare-bones coverage they make available to 18–22-year-old students who do not much need annual prostate exams or coverage for hip-replacement surgery...

Dozens of new taxes, regulatory beasties, and unlovely business outcomes have cropped up since the bill was passed. Meanwhile, the Democrats have declared war on financial reality... Obamacare levies a 3.8 percent tax on profits from home sales — meaning they have reduced the real sales value of American homes by 3.8 percent — and Democrats act as though this will have no effect on the tanking housing market. They issue “interim final” rules that change at the whim of the administration and then deny that uncertainty is hobbling the economy. They require that every business file a 1099 for the IRS for every vendor transaction exceeding $600 — a requirement that the IRS itself confesses it lacks sufficient manpower to handle — and then promise that their program will save the country money through reduced paperwork. They add an extra layer of taxation onto investments to offset the costs of their health-care mess and then wonder that investors aren’t pouring money into new job-creating enterprises...

Meanwhile, Obamacare innovations such as the Community Living Assistance Program already are poised to far exceed the budgets established for them in the bill, and the turbocharged Medicaid provisions are threatening to bankrupt states across the country. Thanks to Obamacare, you will pay more for heart stents and other life-saving medical devices, and you’ll have less money to do so once all the additional taxes and fees with which the bill is larded up kick in...

We propose that the next Congress adopt as House Bill 1 a single sentence: “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed.”

 

[CriticalThought]

They are getting as much money as they can before the system changes. If anything, it is proof of why we needed this legislation.

 

[Diogenes]

No government - anywhere on earth, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services. I heartily endorse the proposal:

We propose that the next Congress adopt as House Bill 1 a single sentence: “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed.”

 

[LaMidRighter]

They are getting as much money as they can before the system changes. If anything, it is proof of why we needed this legislation.

No single provider ever gets money before any service is rendered, even insurance companies. If you are paying a health insurance company at least you have coverage, as of right now you are paying the government AGAIN, to get jack ****.

 

[Objective Voice]

For what it's worth, there seems to be mixed opinion by voters leading up to the midterms on exactly how people feel about some of the provisions in the health care reform legislation as this article would indicate.

IMO, I think the only way the health care law gets overturned is if the SC determine it to be unconstitutional. Republicans won't be able to repeal it unless they win a majority in both chambers of Congress (or they're able to lure a few Democrats their way). Even with all these newfound Republican enthusiasm leading up to the midterms, I just don't see Republicans making the kind of gains necessary to overturn this law.

 

[Diogenes]

Agreed that it can't be repealed without veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, but the new House can make sure that none of Obamacare is funded. Let Obama deal with his own unfunded mandate.

 

[Objective Voice]

Diogenes,

Those in opposition to health care reform really astound me.

You know health care costs are increasing across the board - Medicare, Medicaid, medical co-pays, surgical deductables, lab test, prescription medicines - and yet you complain about this first real step that ultimately was a compromise w/Republicans to enact health care reform.

You talk about "unfunded social programs" and yet even by CBO estimates health care costs would begin to decrease after the first decade (atleast the fed's responsibility to pay toward it).

You complain about the uninsured using emergency rooms as their primary care facility knowing full well that the insured pay a small portion of their health insurance premiums collective to offset the "free" medical treatment the uninsured receive.

You know people are being denied medical care/treatment and that medical expenses are pushing people into bankruptcy, yet you want to repeal health care reform law.

And this erroneous claim of "government taking over health care/government run health care" is a boldfaced lie; the Health Insurance Exchanges will be run by the States because that's where it should be - at the State level. Furthermore, if you stop and think you'll realize that the federal government has been instructing you in pretty much all of your health care related needs for a very long time. It's all around you! Most people just don't stop and think about it.

FDA, USDA, EPA, CDC, Dept. of Health and Human Services...all government entities, all have had a hand in protecting, informing and in some cases implementing medical treatment/immunizations to keep this nation as healthy as it can against the threat of diseases, i.e., pandemics or epidemics, explaining some simple routine matters such washing your hands to prevent the spread of common cold/flu germs or more catystrophic health conditions such as breast, lung, throat or pancreatic cancer.

I think a rational, legitimate case can be made that not only should health care be a right, but that the insurance mandate is valid. I hope to conclude my research by this weekend and share my findings. Stay tuned...

 

[Diogenes]

ObamaCare is hardly "this first real step" toward positive health care reform because it completely ignores *all* of the options which *would* lead to a better health system: tort reform, purchase of insurance across state lines, and the like. The insurance exchanges seem designed to fail, which will then be trumpeted as a failure of the free market (albeit shackled in government chains) and therefore the government will be cleared to step in and take over the entire system. Then we will be introduced to the NICE (National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness) death panels so dear to the hearts of True Progressives.

No government - anywhere on the planet, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering retail goods and services, as Obama & Co. are proving once again. The benefits of ObamaCare are only in your imagination.

 

[bowerbird]

No government - anywhere on earth, at any time in history - has ever demonstrated the slightest competence in delivering consumer goods or services. I heartily endorse the proposal:

Come to Australia then

You might be surprised what a little socialism can do for you

 

[Diogenes]

Come to Australia then

Thanks for the offer but I've been there, done that. Nice people, interesting customs (some of which should be adopted here), but the dead hand of government is too heavy for my taste.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Principles over standard of living.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I think a rational, legitimate case can be made that not only should health care be a right, but that the insurance mandate is valid. I hope to conclude my research by this weekend and share my findings. Stay tuned...

I sincerely look forward to you being able to make a rational, legitimate case that health care should be a right, but at the same time you have to pay for your health care. I'm going to go ahead and give you a preemptive :lamo :lamo :lamo and wish you luck with that.

Is it a right, or a responsibility? And do you understand the difference?

 

[Objective Voice]

I sincerely look forward to you being able to make a rational, legitimate case that health care should be a right, but at the same time you have to pay for your health care. I'm going to go ahead and give you a preemptive :lamo :lamo :lamo and wish you luck with that.

Is it a right, or a responsibility? And do you understand the difference?

What would you consider your constitutional right to bear arms - a right or a responsibility? If a right, why doesn't the government pay to arm its citizens? If a responsibility, would it then be rational or even ethical for a government to arm its citizens in order to protect themselves against the very entity that potentially can threatens their very freedoms? Think it through...

 

[FederalRepublic]

What would you consider your constitutional right to bear arms - a right or a responsibility? If a right, why doesn't the government pay to arm its citizens? If a responsibility, would it then be rational or even ethical for a government to arm its citizens in order to protect themselves against the very entity that potentially can threatens their very freedoms? Think it through...

I can arm myself without spending a dime and without stealing anything from anybody, but that's not really the point. I'm having a little trouble understanding the exact point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that since I have a right to bear arms, that it is someone else's responsibility to provide said arms, or that the government should see to it that I am being responsible and force me to arm myself?

 

[Objective Voice]

I can arm myself without spending a dime and without stealing anything from anybody, but that's not really the point. I'm having a little trouble understanding the exact point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that since I have a right to bear arms, that it is someone else's responsibility to provide said arms, or that the government should see to it that I am being responsible and force me to arm myself?

Exactly!

And as you're clearly objecting to, we may have the right to purchase arms in order to defend ourselves, our family and our property against unwanted criminal acts including "unauthorized search and siezure" by the very government who guarantees us this right, but that doesn't mean that the government or the state inwhich we reside is obligated to provide us such arms. We, as free men, have the freedom to decide whether or not we wish to exercise this right and in doing so, we take the responsibility to arm ourselves. The same principle would apply to the insurance mandate. Of course, if the acquisition of health care is "mandated" it certainly isn't a right. This is why the Obama Administration has sought the approval of the lower District Courts - to start the process within the judiciary to justify health care as a right. It's the same tactic the Bush/Cheney Administration used to pass specific measures within the USA Patriat Act. However, I believe that where health care is concerned because it is a "commercial industry", the only way to ensure that all citizens not only obtains health insurance but is afforded the opportunity to acquire same at a fair market price, health benefit packages must be standardized and the health care industry must be regulated insofar as markets can become more competitive and access to health care can be more accessible.

As stated in a previous post, I believe that health care should be a right. I explain why I believe so in this thread. I would ask the reader to reserve judgment until after reviewing the reference sources provided therein.

 

[FederalRepublic]

...but that doesn't mean that the government or the state inwhich we reside is obligated to provide us such arms.

Unless I'm misreading you, you are attempting to argue exactly the opposite as it pertains to health care.

However, I believe that where health care is concerned because it is a "commercial industry", the only way to ensure that all citizens not only obtains health insurance but is afforded the opportunity to acquire same at a fair market price, health benefit packages must be standardized and the health care industry must be regulated insofar as markets can become more competitive and access to health care can be more accessible.

I'm having a bit of trouble following you, maybe it's the headache. The only way to ensure that all citizens obtain health insurance is to either force them to buy it or buy it for them. Do you disagree? Standardized health benefit packages will increase, rather than decrease market prices. How will making it more expensive make access to health care more accessible? Are you an Obama administration official? Is your purpose to increase the cost of health care to a point that average individuals are no longer able to afford it, and will therefore be forced to accept single-payer health care?

 

[The_Patriot]

I can arm myself without spending a dime and without stealing anything from anybody, but that's not really the point. I'm having a little trouble understanding the exact point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that since I have a right to bear arms, that it is someone else's responsibility to provide said arms, or that the government should see to it that I am being responsible and force me to arm myself?

Umm bad argument since under the Constitution of the United States in Article I Section VIII Clause XVI states that the federal government is responsible for arming everyone.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The militia is comprised of every person between the ages of 18-45.

 

[Objective Voice]

Patriot,

Good point; however, I don't believe an "all volunteer force" today would constitute a "militia" even at the State level. This country stopped using the draft in order to populate its Armed Services after the Vietnam War. Since that time, all active active duty servicemen (and women) and reservists have been volunteers not draftees. Still, it is true that those who make up our Armed Services must be well equipped to carry out those efforts in protecting the security of a nation and the main thrust of that security is to arm the military appropriately.

Still, it's a good argument and worth noting that our government does provide the People arms whenever necessary.

 

[The_Patriot]

Patriot,

Good point; however, I don't believe an "all volunteer force" today would constitute a "militia" even at the State level. This country stopped using the draft in order to populate its Armed Services after the Vietnam War. Since that time, all active active duty servicemen (and women) and reservists have been volunteers not draftees. Still, it is true that those who make up our Armed Services must be well equipped to carry out those efforts in protecting the security of a nation and the main thrust of that security is to arm the military appropriately.

Still, it's a good argument and worth noting that our government does provide the People arms whenever necessary.

It doesn't, but the militia is everyone that is between 18-45 and they are the unorganized militia.