-->

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..

Why I Am Against Obamacare

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Why I Am Against Obamacare”.

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 (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jeff says:

    I know this article is old, hopefully people still read it when it pops up on Google. However, new cost for implementing the regulations is over twice as much as initially projected (Gov. undershooting their programs cost, what is new?), the new figure is close to 1.8 Trillion dollars. Thanks Obama.

  2. Kelli says:

    There is a reason people come from other countries for care in the U.S. It’s because we have superior care and they CAN”T get these procedures done in their homeland because they are on waitlists and many lose their lives WAITING. You’re silly if you think this won’t happen with Obamacare too. We will lose doctors which will further cause problem with being able to get proper care. I beg all of you to think and take the damn politics out of it. Nothing our government does currently having to do with age and healthcare do they do well. Social Security is mandated – BUST Medicade/Medicare – BUST why would you think this to be different? Prescriptions alone are putting people on Medicare with health problems out of their homes. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. WAKE UP and stop the INSANITY!!!!

    • Teresa Wendt says:

      Kelli,
      Thanks for your reply. We know several Canadians who came to the US specifically for health treatments because of the long wait in their homeland.
      Another person reminded me of the many health related inventions by US doctors and researchers. Will there still be incentive to spend all that time and energy on the unproven especially if fewer dollars are directed to that area due to government control?
      Your comment about prescription cost since Medicare PartD is probably worthy of a whole write up. My mom’s insulin has gone from $17 to $90 since the government started helping…

  3. mawmd says:

    John: you seem such a believer.
    When you mention there are travelocity for insurance sites that have one teency weency little issue, just that the government will tell insurers what they must cover. Like abortion? Like hair transplants? how will that lower prices? There must be market control so any type of plan is available, not what our ruling class mandates.
    The mandate argument used to sway me too. But the problem is its unconstitutional. Regardless of what justice Roberts did with his little bendy twisty contortionist act says. There are lots of good ideas that are illegal. Freedom comes at a cost. But the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions.
    It’s a very slippery slope with the government whose main purpose is buying votes for the next election. If we don’t constrain them to the constitution, we crash the system and lose everything.
    Just because the Democrats controlled the conversation and forced this through in such an underhanded fashion does not make it the only or best solution.
    Tort reform, tort reform, tort reform. Anyone. Oh yeah lawyers run the system…

    • John Clinton says:

      Mawmd, not sure I follow your arguments:

      - gov’t is telling insurers what to cover already, no need to wait for the HIEs (health insurance exchanges) to get THAT meddle on…

      - unfortunately, affordability is probably the BIGGEST weakness of govt mandates on health insurance: you can make them cover anything, but you can’t make them NOT CHARGE people for having to do that

      - can’t debate the constitutionality with you -there’s a ton of experts in Constitutional law who are on either side. But the ones that count (Supreme Court) have ruled, so it IS “Constitutional” as far as we are concerned, the people whose job it is t make that decision have decided it for us.

      And hopefully my main point and your last one show where we are in agreement: we’ve now let the Federal gov’t into the middle of our healthcare decisions in a BIG way. Our only option seems to be to watch them like a hawk. I hope we remain eternally vigilant, for we’ve just received a wake-up call reminder that such is the price of freedom.

    • Teresa Wendt says:

      Thanks for your comments mawmd. We keep hearing from the right that tort reform is needed and from the left that it won’t fix enough so they choose to do nothing. Is it because many are lawyers …or their lobbyists are?
      When we get a Republican Congress we may get a bill passed that deals with this significant issue.

  4. Brian says:

    What I heard was that states would have to come up with money for the Plan, but most of them are struggling. I’d really like to hear something more solid than that.

    I’d really like to keep my doctor and my own insurance plans.

    • John Clinton says:

      Teresa, thanks for the careful explication of your positions – I think you have several very important issues here, such as the impact of lowered Medicaid / Medicare reimbursement rates on the doctor-patient relationship, or how the government has just taken a huge role in dictating what care we may receive by deciding what insurers are / are not required to cover.

      However, I take exception to a few items you mention.

      First, besides Medicare / Medicaid, there is no “government plan” which people will be “forced” onto: the healthcare exchanges are more like “Travelocity for insurance” – you go look for what you want, and the insurance companies offer different options to try to win your business (your premiums). Other than requiring the states to HAVE such websites available, the federal government isn’t taking a role in providing that coverage (beyond dictating issues about what the insurers must cover).

      Also, regarding pre-existing conditions, I think you missed something: beginning 1/1/14, the ACA requires insurers to accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions (one of those government-dictated aspects of healthcare coverage under ACA). As you correctly state, a LOT of “exemptions” will exist out there, but overall this one seems to be a “desirable” federal mandate (desirable as in most people support it, although it’s like the camel’s nose under the edge of the tent…).

      Next, regarding states potentially dropping Medicaid coverage, I think this is HIGHLY unlikely. First, the Feds say they will pay 100% of the cost for the 1st three years (ever heard of a “loss leader”?), and then 90% of the coverage after that. No, it’s not free, the IRS will tax someone to pay for it, but from the STATE’s view, it will be free for their citizens – and a huge stimulus to the economy, as all those extra Medicaid enrollees will be seeing doctors, buying Rx, etc., all paid by the federal gov’t…instead of running up bills in ERs that won’t get paid (will be paid by local property taxes supporting county hospitals providing indigent care). Even here in Texas, where Gov. Perry talks a good game about refusing to expand Medicaid, the HHSC is already making plans to accept them (I used to work with them, I’ve seen it first-hand).

      Additionally, I think the ACA *will* reduce healthcare costs (compared to what they would be without it), as more people will have coverage, and therefore will have their care addressed in a primary care setting vs. hospital ERs, thus reducing the unpaid indigent care currently burdening the local public hospitals (a cost borne by taxpayers which is not often discussed in the context of ACA).

      The “mandate” is, I think, a good idea. Why? Texas used to require motorcyclists to wear helments; they dropped that after protests from those who said it “restricted their freedoms.” I spent a couple years in a volunteer program of my church, doing therapy exercises with a young man who suffered a “closed head injury” from not wearing a helmet. His medical bills were well over $1 million, and he didn’t have health insurance. The hospitals ultimately had to “eat” the cost, meaning taxpayers had to cover it. MANY people his age don’t get insurance, because the odds of needing it are low, and the cost relatively high. But when they DO need it, they often need LOTS of it, and it’s all the rest of us who pay. Just like state-mandated liability coverage, society has a right to protect itself from the uninsured.

      But here’s where you and I WILL agree: allowing the federal government to take such a major role in healthcare is a HUGE problem. Today, it’s allowing children to be covered under their parents’ insurance, and requiring insurers to disregard pre-existing conditions; but what will it be tomorrow? No heart transplants for those over 75 (“give the heart to someone with longer to live”), or no triple-bypass surgeries for those more than 50 lbs overweight (“don’t spend money on people who abuse their own health”). What about requiring abortions for unmarried women under a certain age? Or for those who already have X children? We’ve just entered the “slippery slope” territory, and where it stops, who can say? I fear we will come to regret allowing the government to become so influential in the field of healthcare.

      Let’s see if we can find REAL solutions, REASONABLE trade-offs, WORKABLE programs. The ACA over-reaches in some areas, falls short in others. In some ways, it’s a good start – and other ways, it’s the beginning of the end. We must be vigilant, and not let this get away from us. Our lives and our freedom depend on it.

      • Kathy says:

        Acceptance in to a plan does not make it affordable.

        This is the pre-cursor to a government plan. Insurance companies are forced to raise prices as we are forced to have insurance for things that we don’t need. Nobody in our group needs maternity care. Too bad. Our premiums have risen 3 times in 3 years. Another 25% hike is coming on 1/1 /2013, in addition to the Cadillac Tax because the plan is expensive!!

        John, I am sorry but cannot agree with your counter-points. More people with “insurance” in a system with fewer practitioners=shoddy care= need for more extensive care down the road as proper care was not received in the first place.

        And don’t get me started on the excise tax on charitable hospitals.
        The author mentions the pacemaker. My Dad was told in February that not only would he NOT have been able to get the excellent pacer implanted that he has had for 2 years had this act already been in place. We were also told that now he would not be able to even receive one.

        The entire underlying purpose of this ACT was made clear by the supporters in Washington -we have listened closely.
        This is the first step on the path to a single -payer system.
        States are already “opting out” of the new Medicaid guidelines..I live in one of them .

        As for the slippery slope- we are already there.

        • Teresa Wendt says:

          Thank you for your reply Kathy. Our insurance also has taken big jumps each year.
          I am also very glad that your father was able to get a much needed pacemaker. I am sure there is a big difference in your father’s quality of life having a pacemaker as opposed to taking a few additional heart medicines.The question of who makes these decisions, particularly for the Medicare age should worry more people.
          Teresa

      • Teresa Wendt says:

        John,
        Thank you for your response. Opinion pieces often bring exciting debate and counter points but I admit I was surprised that you questioned the veracity of several statements:

        Pre-existing Conditions—Pre-existing conditions (PCIP) are now eligible for coverage during the gap before full implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January, 2014 as I wrote. However, my point of consideration was that because something is available does not mean it is affordable. The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination against writing policies for pre-existing condition. The question for today remains whether a low to mid income person can (or will) contribute 10% or more of their income to health care. Of course, if completely implemented this ‘tax’ will be assessed without option.

        Medicaid Coverage—Perhaps your comments regarding states dropping Medicaid was in response to a linked article. States are not going to drop Medicaid but do now have the option not to add the additional patients as part of the Affordable Care Act. My remarks were about the physicians who are anticipated to drop Medicaid and Medicare due to the reduced reimbursement. Which, though you may disagree, many state governors (i.e., Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana) have stated they will not participate in the expanded Medicaid program that is required by the Affordable Care act. While you may not see the additional 10% cost to the states as a valid reason to stay out of the program, some do.

        Government Insurance—The Affordable Care Act plans currently in place are not sponsored by the government, yet. Not a single payer program, the exchange program or government insurance will be paid for by taxpayers. The concern of many is that as more companies drop their insurance coverage the country will move closer to a single payer system. This administration has been clear in its desire to move this direction. Many would agree that, while not directly paying for Affordable Care Act coverage immediately, the federal government will have direct influence on services rendered and payment to providers.

        Individual Mandate—While not a topic in my original discussion is certainly a hot button, none the less. I understand your sympathy to the head-injured, helmetless, motorcycle rider. Still, I would ask where do we draw the line? Is it the government responsibility to make sure I live my life sensibly, exercise regularly, and eat only the right foods? Our farmer cousin has identification chips implanted in his cows’ ears that allow him to regulate how much they can eat. Is this too extreme? Should there be a detector on my car that alerts police when I drive more than 10 miles over the speed limit? Do not people have the right to do foolish things? The Libertarian side of me says the government should stay out of our lives—however, the sensible mom in me does think we need a safety net, a program that covers us in case of a tragedy such as that traumatic brain injury, or perhaps cancer treatment.

        I found an article from the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) particularly informative.
        From the preface: The Administration’s vision of health care is based on the premise that the federal government can—and must—control the details of health care financing and delivery across the country. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is the scaffolding for this control. The new law gives the Administration extensive authority to achieve broadly outlined goals, allowing it to control every aspect of health care finance and delivery and to impose its view of how the health care system should operate. The Administration will issue volumes of complex regulations. Health care is being bureaucratized and politicized. The structure of the health care system will be determined by one central authority, reducing flexibility and denying Americans the ability to make their own choices. Americans will have to obtain health insurance and health care based on what the federal government deems best for them.
        Teresa

    • Teresa Wendt says:

      Brian,
      Thanks for your comments. The Affordable Health Plan is supposed to cover additional low to mid income people through an expansion of the state run Medicaid programs. The extra cost to the states is initially funded 100% by the federal government which drops to 90% in a few years. It sounds good on paper but as you said, states are already struggling. Can they come up with that 10%? Many states are saying the enrollment numbers will cost them more than they can afford.