Tag Archives: Obama’s health care

Why I Am Against Obamacare

A number of people have noted that I am outspoken against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Some have even asked why, why when this is such a good program that will provide health care to all, am I against it?

So here are my key reasons. Many are from personal experience. Many are from discussions with health care providers and some are just from anecdotal information.  I’ll back up statistics with links and my opinions with common sense.

Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions

This is a subject near and dear to me. I was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 years ago. Now, under Obamacare I am eligible for pre-existing coverage. Or am I? Coverage through government will not begin until I am without health care for six months. Coverage comes at a cost. The first thing I looked at was the cost of this new plan. In my age group it will cost $240 per month, plus a $2000 deductible and up to $5700 as my portion of the coverage for one year. The website tells me if I can’t afford the premiums I should look into Medicaid for assistance.  Arizona’s Medicaid plan at best covers me if I make less than $24000 per year.

PCIP $2880 premium + $2000 deductible + 20% of fees to $5700 per year
Arizona Medicaid Eligibility Make less than $12000/year or if disabled less than $24000/year and have less than $2000 in resources.

This week the president was seen consoling a woman whose sister died from colon cancer. He says she would be covered today. Would she? The sister did not qualify for Medicaid. Let’s say she made a reasonable $40,000 per year (or $30,000). Would she have the nearly $5000 per year to pay for premiums plus her co-pays? Or would she, like many still be unable to afford the health care?

The result of Obamacare and the current law is that many still will fall through the cracks. Everyone will have opportunity for coverage but too many will not be able to afford it.

Doctors. . . Or. . .If You Like Your Doctor You Can Keep Your Doctor

Baby boomers continue to reach retirement age and with age comes the need for more medical care. The number of Medicare patients will rise while the reimbursement per patient visit is scheduled to drop. Doctors who can’t afford to take the lower reimbursement rates are either dropping their patients or not taking any new ones.  The situation will be even more dire for Medicaid patients as physician reimbursement averages only 60% of the Medicare rate.  I have a disabled young adult son. He qualifies for Medicaid.  I go through hoops to keep him on our family coverage each year so that we can find a doctor with whom we have confidence in our area.

Some people think doctors are already paid too much. One physician friend asked me, “Should you pay your auto mechanic more than you pay your doctor?” Doctors today are among our smartest and most dedicated professionals. They sacrifice many additional years studying, training and paying tuition. As they make life and death decisions in our behalf should they not be at the top of our list instead of the bottom?

The result of Obamacare will reduce Medicare reimbursements and by fiat Medicaid payments.  Physicians will stop accepting these patients. More people will be on the roles with fewer doctors to choose from. Wait times will increase. Finding a doctor in rural areas may be especially challenging.

If You Like Your Insurance You Can Keep Your Insurance

Who but the most gullible believe this? Some companies (many supporters of Obama) received waivers and don’t have to follow the new insurance rules until years in the future. Most others have to look at the cost of health insurance versus the cost of the penalty (tax). In a difficult economy such as we seem stuck, the bottom line will make the choice for businesses. If the penalty is less than the current cost of health insurance companies will drop their policies forcing employees onto the government plan.  This should not be a surprise to those who pay attention. The only way for the government health plan to work is by increasing the pool. For their budget numbers to work a large percentage of the population have to go on to the government plan.

The result of Obamacare will be that more people sign on to the government health plan. Compare to Canada where people say they have a great health plan…until they need to use it.

 Obamacare Will Lower Your Insurance Cost

The president repeatedly promised that his new health insurance program would lower insurance costs $2500 for middle class families. Forbes reports that college health care will increase by over 1000%! The Kaiser Family Foundation survey found insurance premiums jumped over 9% in 2011. As more states opt out of the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid (due to the Supreme Court ruling allowing for such) economists expect costs to continue to rise.

The result of Obamacare and the Supreme Court ruling is that not all states will participate in the expanded Medicaid program. Fewer in the pool means higher costs for those who pay.

Who decides My Healthcare? Me? My doctor? Or Joe Bean-Counter?

Remember the Sarah Palin ‘Death Panels’? The media sure had fun with them. But it turns out that there will be no name, non-health care bureaucrats who will be making key decisions about my health care. It’s already begun. Have you seen the recommendation from a government task force that screening mammograms should not begin until age 50? (I was diagnosed before age 50—does that mean other women will not have the luxury of early treatment?) Did you see the recommendation from another government panel that discourages PSA screening blood work?

I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking no way will these important screening tools be cut. But you’d be wrong. Look at the UK, look at Canada. Additionally, you may remember President Obama telling one concerned voter that maybe old grandma should not have the pacemaker surgery; maybe she should just take a pill. Who should make this decision? The government or the family?

The result of Obamacare is that by necessity tests and screenings will be evaluated strongly on a dollars and cents basis. If you want these early detection screenings you may soon be paying out of pocket. Decisions on life enabling versus life maintaining procedures may be decided, not by the patient or family and doctor but by a bureaucrat.

These are the top reasons. We haven’t touched on prescription costs that have jumped in correlation to government programs. Nor the abuse and fraud that can’t seem to be controlled and has the potential to get far worse with increasing enrollment. And we did not talk about the increase in taxes which will be felt by the middle class beginning next year. I did not even look at the idea of ‘free services’ (who over age six really believes free stuff just appears magically?) and the entire religious rights situation…

No one argues that health care needs reform. But it seems to many that this current law, as it stands is not the answer.

I welcome your thoughts.

Romney’s Achilles Heel

Romney instituted a socialistic health care program in the state of Massachusetts while he was the Governor there and many politically minded people believe that if he is the GOP candidate, he will not be able to defend his statements concerning why he did so. Other are concerned that he will not repeal Obama’s health care program which will be imposed upon the citizens of all 50 States starting in 2014. There are several similarities in Obama’s Health Care Program and Romney Care.

In order to combat the criticisms of his applying Romney Care into law, Mitt uses the rationalization that the citizens of Massachusetts wanted universal health care for the state. This is a specious argument and displays his wrong thinking. An elected official is duty bound to protect his constituents from making wrong decisions, he is morally bound to stand for the Constitution not only of the United States, but in the case of States’ elected officials, the Constitution of that State. Mitt shirked his moral and honorable responsibility by signing that bill into law.

Romney would have better footing in this campaign if he had vetoed that bill, and sent it back to the legislature to leave it to them to force the citizens of Massachusetts to pay for medical care. And many citizens of Massachusetts did not want this forced upon them. Many people moved to New Hampshire, in protest, to avoid the taxes to pay for this failed program as well as the fees associated with not having health care insurance.

Using the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution to justify this action is also a rationalization. The Founders never intended for the 9th or the 10th to be used to put into place an anti-American, anti-capitalistic, pro-collectivist law by which some citizens are mandated to pay for other citizens, nor was it intended to force people to buy something they felt they didn’t need. Many younger people don’t buy health insurance because they are healthy and have not incurred any medical expenses.

This argument reverts to Original Intent, not only of the United States Constitution, but to the State of Massachusetts Constitution which was adopted in 1780.

In order to understand what Original Intent means, we must first know what a Constitution is.

According to The American Handbook of Constitutional Law by Henry Campbell Black, LL. D. in the 4th edition published in 1927 by the West Publishing Company, a Constitution is a governing document instituted by the people as a whole instead of by a legislature of their representatives. He states that it cannot be abrogated, repealed or modified by any power except that which established it, the people. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php He continues by pointing out that Constitutions are not established to restrain the people, but to restrain the government.

Black continues, “The provisions of a constitution refer to the fundamental principles of government and the establishment and guaranty of liberties, instead of being designed merely to regulate the conduct of individuals among themselves. [Constitutions announce principles, while statutes apply them. Sproules v. State, 97 Tex Cr. R. 561, 262 S. W. 757.” Ibid.

Summarizing, a Constitution is written for the people, put into effect by the people and it is to protect the people’s Natural Rights. It is a document limiting the control the government has over the people who voted to install the Constitution as their governing document.

Since both the US Constitution and the Constitution of Massachusetts have an amendment process, the definition of Original Intent must be utilized to guide that process.

Language is one of our keys to understanding what people write. However, words change meaning over time and in order to understand what is meant by a document written over 200 years ago, we must turn to the dictionary meaning of the words from that time period. Finding what the Founders actually wanted for this country is hinged on this premise.

The body of the Constitution outlines the limitations on the Federal Government, the duties of the government and the division of the government. The Rights of the People are outlined in the Constitution, primarily in the Bill of Rights, the first Ten Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The combination of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are our Founding Documents and they delineate the restrictions placed upon the Federal Government. In the 9th and 10th Amendments, the enumeration of the rights of the people not spelled out in the first eight Amendments is reserved for the people and for the States. However, taking from one person the fruits of his labor is not something the Founders intended, even if the people vote for that proposition. The “Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Declaration was, among other implications, intended to ensure that people would have the right to do what they desired to increase their property, including physical property, monetary property, intellectual property and the results of those quests and to not have the Government of the Federal or State government legislate to confiscate those yields even if citizens vote for it. One person does not have the right to take the rights of another unless that right is given over freely. The majority voting to take from the minority is not the same thing. Giving of one’s rights to another person is an individual’s action.

The “Pursuit of Happiness” clause is part of Original Intent. When we refer to this concept, what is meant is the government may not change provisions of the original document with respect to liberties. In other words, it may not be amended to take away the rights of the people. We have seen several Amendments that do just this, for example, the 16th, which addresses Income Tax.

The first words from the Preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts are as follows: “The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life…” (The original spelling is utilized here.) http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ma-1780.htm As you can see, though the language is different from the United States Constitution, the implication is the same: Men are entitled to the fruits of their labor.

“Laws must relate to the nature and the principle of the government that is established or that one wants to establish, whether those laws form it as do political laws, or maintain it, as do civil laws.” Charles de Montesquieu

These issues will rear their ugly head over and over as Romney continues to campaign for the nomination of the Republican Party Candidate.

And, Obama will use the fact that his health care reform bill is based on Romney Care.

Will Romney be able to defend his position on his signing the health care bill when he was Governor of Massachusetts when he faces Obama?

The voting bloc will pay attention.