Obamacare: A Farrago of a Mess

On Monday, I read the transcripts from the Sunday morning talk shows.  One comment that struck a tone with me that I read was from Laura Ingraham.  Now honestly, albeit an intelligent person, I rarely agree with her observations but this time I did. She gave an apt description of Obamacare as a “libertine mess of a piece of legislation.” I wanted to name this essay exactly this, however fearing copyright challenges, I came up with my own title of a similar nature

Regardless if you call it the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, the fact is that for the vast majority of Americans, in particular the ones that lost coverage and now have higher premiums and deductibles, the foul side effects and unplanned imports have not been received well. Admittedly, no new government program is going to be completely perfect and however laudable a desire as it is to provide health insurance to millions that do not have any coverage, the reality is that health benefit mandates and willy-nilly rating rules significantly increase health insurance costs, and as a result are passed on to consumers.

I don’t mind saying it, but I predicted all of this years ago. It began with, from the very start, when President Obama kept on saying that American families would experience an annual reduction of $2,500 in their health costs if his law was passed. This would be mathematically impossible unless some extreme assumptions could be made and they were. The biggest being one of structure given that the ACA doesn’t even address the cost of health coverage. It is easy to make sweeping statements when the direct object of a statement (cost of health insurance coverage) isn’t even spoken about in the legislation. Another and more problematic aspect of the law is that Obamacare can only work the manner stated if cats participate in the“individual mandate.” If you don’t then fear the tax and be fined either greater of 2.5 percent of your household’s taxable income or $695 per uninsured adult and $347.50 per uninsured child in your family. This flat fee rate will increase each year with inflation. The assumption here was that if employer and employee insurance costs were greatly reduced, then that would have a direct, outcome on citizens in the form of the aforementioned $2500 per year for the average family. Maybe this is why then President Obama stated that his law would “not burden people who make $250,000 a year or less,” or why he said that the ACA would not add “a dime” to the federal deficit. 

None of what has thus far been presented has occurred. What has is that it has been estimated that the ACA will cost about $1.34 trillion over the next decade and that Obamacare’s tax penalty connected with the individual mandate thus far falls more on lower-income and lower-middle-income individuals/families since subsidies for deductibles and other costs for income-eligible persons enrolled in the exchanges are available only to enrollees who select certain level health plans, which means that the plan must pay 70 percent of the average enrollee’stotal medical expenses for covered benefits. This in itself defeats the purpose of having insurance.

Economics side, another problem for many, myself included is that Obamacare abrogates individual and personal freedom not only by limiting choices but by allowing the government to make you to participate by buying insurance for not obeying the law. Almost every main decision in the health care sector of the American economy under the ACA is in the hands openly or ultimately, by federal officials – unelected federal officials.

But if you participate, you give up most of the liberty us as individuals connect with choice and medical freedom. Just take the Obamacare's Independent Advisory Board (IPAB) for example. This allows for the ACA to create a 15-member panel of experts that determining the type of care that Medicare pays for on behalf of the individual and consequently rations Medicare through price controls for that individual – whatever they decide you are stuck with. Why, because under Title I, federal officials define the content of health insurance coverage, including but not limited to obligatory medical actions, treatment and preventive health care services.  Then there is the large long-term care program called the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act. As early as five years ago we knew many of the components of the legislation were not practical or affordable. The Obama Administration’s from the start knew that the CLASS act was not financially feasible, but wanted it and so kept the program anyway.

In summary, the ACA has increased costs for individuals,families, and businesses and unlike proponents of the bill claimed, instead the American people have come to hate the bill more and more. Not only is it worsening America's debt problem, federal spending on healthcare is also increasing which some believe will result in trillion-dollar deficits in seven years' time. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that U.S. Federal debt could be as high as $30 trillion by 2030, as a consequence of Obamacare. Don’t even include the absence of insurance options under Obamacare or the failing co-ops. Large insurance providers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Healthcare and Aetna are all leaving the exchanges and several states have only one insurer providing insurance through Obamacare. Less competition in the exchanges only means higher premiums and deductibles cost and less consumer choice (this is the law of supply and demand).

But such should have been expected, I mean congress had not even read the bill or given the chance to read the bill before being forced to vote on it. But folk still stick up for Obama care.  But to me, a woman over 70 should not be forced to purchase prostate cancer or maternity coverage if she doesn’t have a prostate gland and can’t have a baby.  But folk like this cat seem to don’t get this. How would you feel if you paid the same price for auto insurance as a person with 3 DUI’s? The ACA is truly a hodgepodge, mishmash jumble of confusion - a  Farrago for lack of a better word.

Read More

When Democratic Arrogance Becomes Whining Tantrums

Weeks after the Presidential election and it appears that some folks are still very much in their feelings. Each day it seems that no matter what the President Elect says or does, it is problematic for this segment of the electorate and if given attention to, is considered to be some sort of dangerous attempt to “normalize’ the behavior of a person they consider pathological and profoundly perilous.

This week it ranges from Trumps taking calls from the leaders of Pakistan, Presidentof Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev or Taiwan, to his cabinet selections. However, any clinician worth their professionalism would note that these are just secondary to the main issue which is that as opposed to accepting reality they prefer to remain in a delusory state of denial, displacement and projection. This became clear to me after I heard the entire two hour and thirty-eight minute exchange between the Trump and Clinton campaign teams at Harvard this past week. 

Obviously, there remains a significant level of grief for losing and animosity against Trump for winning the 2016 Presidential election. Thus no matter what the president elect does, will always be seen negatively. I saw this same sort of bitterness and angst displayed by the GOP and Clinton staffers when Obama won his 2008 run for the presidency.

Although Trump has thus far selected accomplished people who have made a mark in their chosen fields of expertise, many liberals are upset because he has not placed career politicians the likes of Clinton or Kerry in such slots as Obama did, although he ran on this as part of his platform. More indicative of this rage can be observed when they attempt to buttress their interpretations via argument, then seem unable to make any critical comment without invoking Hitler comparisons or worse, vilifying these selections as being images of racism or sexism, or the final election outcome being due to the influence of hackers and Russian meddling as a blogger I frequently read noted.

They ignore the fact that many in middle America outside of the urban landscape perceive that the Democrat party derides the concept of working hard, seem to care about not enforcing laws or supporting the men/women whom they frequently send off to fight in unnecessary wars and have more concern for illegal/undocumented aliens or foreign refugees than thepeople born here – especially the poor and homeless.

Accurate or not, they see the Federal government as a business and think it should be run like a business the way they run their households like businesses. These are some of the same people that gave Obama a chance although he had no business experience and what they see as the result is an America where race relations, poverty, employment opportunity and economic security has gotten worse.  They considered Hillary Clinton fairly but concluded she was not in touch with their life experiences, and like Obama, had never in her life run anything on the level of a business. Not to forget that when President Elect Obama filled his cabinet with political elites, academics and Ivy League professors, there was no complaints. But with Trump bringing in competent people with success in the real world to be his advisors, it is evident that he desires folk that want to put the US before using their government positions to make money for themselves. These people already have money and such selections demonstrate that it is Trump’s goal to run the government like a business.

Even when he follows through on a promise to keep that Indiana Carrier plant from moving to Mexico he is mocked. Yet there was no problem with Obama when he gave $500 million to Solyndra and even called Solyndra a success when he visited the company although most experts considered the company a failure.  This is what most Americans see, and they consider these types of actions as arrogant responses of cry-baby sore losers. Not to mention we all know that he gave Solyndra this money as a favor to Rep. Pete Stark of California so he would push the ACA out of the House health committee. 

Trump is putting together a business leadership coterie of advisers that understand the global economic market. This thus far has proven to be a group of folk that will not be prisoner to special interest. Which is another reason many are turned off by democrats whining and making excuses as if the general populous is so dumb that on our own examination, we are not supposed to see through the artificial veneer that you project Hilary Clinton to be. We, no matter what you tell us we should think or believe will never see Hillary as being smarter than us, let alone as successful as Trump, who although began with a large loan from his father, built his business with hard work and not with $250,000 a pop 45 minute speeches.

Democrats have to stop whining and confront the actuality that they are out of touch and have been out of touch and only have themselves to blame and no one else, so stop crying and pointing fingers at contrived bullshit ranging from James Comey, Fake news, or anything else. It is unfathomable as to how you could not see this coming. This was not an isolated event.  Not only did HRC lose, but the Democratic Party also loss on the state level only holding a majority in 31 of the 98 legislative bodies across America.  

Continuing to blame others for their own failures is a major indication that losing on this level for Democrats may only get worse in the coming years if they do not do some somber reflection and soul searching. And I say this because it appears they have learned nothing as evidenced by re-appointing 76 year old California Representative Nancy Pelosi as the Minority Leader of the House. In her own words she recently indicated how out of touch she and her party is when she stated: “I don’t think people want a new direction. Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on. What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country, and that clearly in the election showed that that message wasn’t coming through.”

Yes it looks bad for the democrats when they don’t comprehend that speaking at or down to others and basically ordering them to do something that they singularly have decided as being unacceptable, and calling the names because they don’t, isn’t communicating, nor is it a message.

Read More