-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Supreme Court Decision May Not Matter to ObamaCare Authors

TUCSON, Ariz., June 4, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – The late libertarian economist Murray Rothbard wrote that laws are generally passed to grant some privilege to those who advocate them. So we must always ask “Who benefits?” writes G. Keith Smith, M.D., founder of Surgery Center of Oklahoma(www.surgerycenterok.com), in the summer 2012 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeonshttp://www.jpands.org/vol17no2/smith.pdf.

Smith believes that the main supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “ObamaCare”) have already achieved their main objectives, and so may be indifferent to whether the U.S. Supreme Court overturns it.

One huge beneficiary is the health information technology industry. Physicians and hospitals were presented with a carrot (subsidies to purchase government-approved systems) and a stick (progressive fee cuts If they fail to implement electronic medical records or EMRs). Billions of dollars have already been made, and since the subsidies were in the HITECH Act that preceded the ACA, overturning the ACA might have little effect.

Hospitals favored the costly EMR requirement. The additional overhead cost makes physicians more vulnerable to hospital takeover offers. And once physicians become employees, the EMR provides the hospital the tool it needs for remotely controlling their practices.

Central planners get most of what they need with the EMR, as they will be able to identify high-cost patients. Overturning just the individual mandate would not affect the “death panel” or rationing feature, as the enforcement tool — the EMR — would remain.

The medical loss ratio provision of the law, which requires insurers to pay out all but 10% to 15% of premiums in claims, will do the same thing to small insurers that the EMR requirement does to small hospitals — drive them out of business. For relief from competition, “big businesses are more than willing to pay big money,” Smith writes.

The political theater at the U.S. Supreme Court may serve mainly to divert attention from the real objectives of the biggest proponents of the ACA.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to Technorati

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , ,

Comments (1)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Victoria DeLacy says:

    Supposedly, the bill cannot stand without the individual mandate intact. It then follows that once the mandate is removed the entire bill fails since it cannot be supported. The ideal scenario would be for the Supreme Court to repeal the entire bill in accordance with the expressed will of nerly 75% of the electorate at the time Obama proceeded to get it rammed down our collective throat. If they only get the mandate removed, however, there is insufficient support to keep that deadly bill alive – the sooner it dissolves, the better for the survival of “We the People”!