And not in the good way; he’s got a nice set of reminders about what Obamacare will mean, even without a government option.
It’s not just about the government option and it has never been just about the government option. That part of Obamacare—the part intended to scuttle the health insurance industry—is only one of many things wrong with the President’s proposal. Here are some others (taken from the President’s proposals and the bills being batted around Congress, all of which I will collectively refer to as “Obamacare”):
(1) Forcing insurers to accept all applicants.
This is a big one because it’s another Obamacare provision which can ultimately lead to the collapse of the industry. If you force insurers to accept all applicants, [one of] two things must happen. Either the price of insurance will rise for everyone or insurance will cover less medical care.. . .
(2) The President says that for those unable to pay for private insurance, the government will subsidize their premiums. And who is going to pay for that? The taxpayer. So not only will the Obama plan raise rates (or cut care), it will impose a new burden on the roughly half of Americans who pay income taxes.
. . .
(3) Obamacare imposes mandatory coverage. Backed by the threat of fees (more taxes) for people who fail to sign up for health insurance, Obamacare will require individuals to have health insurance. In other words, the government is going to tell you that you must spend money on this—even if you don’t want it.
Now, I know. As with auto insurance, there is some benefit to having most people covered. But the fact is that many people—espcially young, healthly people—do not want to buy insurance and will never recover the value they’ve spent on premiums. I was required to purchase insurance in college and graduate school and law school. I needed it only once in nine years. In other words, I spent thousands of dollars subsidizing other people’s healthcare. (And the truth is I finally quit buying insurance in law school after I realized how ridiculous the expense was and determined that the school couldn’t enforce that “requirement” anyway.)
It’s a bit much to ask people to buy insurance when they are living on a shoestring and barely making rent. Graduate students and those who are on the bottom rung of the career ladder can’t usually afford non-catastrophic healthcare insurance.
(4) In addition to individual mandates, Obamacare would impose employer mandates. During the campaign, the President and Senator McCain got into an argument at one of the debates about this. McCain claimed that Obama would penalize employers who failed to provide health insurance. Obama indicated very vaguely that he would not.
Obama is having the last laugh now. Under Obamacare, employers—including small businesses least able to adapt to a new fixed cost—will be required to buy into insurance plans for their employees. Failure to participate will result in penalties, once again in the form of a tax.
. . .
In short and say it with me: “Obamacare is anti-prosperity.” This is going to hurt and not just a little and not just because of the government option.
Even more nutshellery: I think this thought might be DrewM.’s originally, but I’m not sure and it’s getting passed around a bit now.
Health care in the US is covered by three main systems– Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. Two of these systems are bankrupt, and will be unable to make payments beyond 2017. The third is solvent, and can make all of its payments for the foreseeable future.
Obama’s plan is to take the one system meeting its obligations and fold it into the two systems that are bankrupt.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
