Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Gutting Obamacare

We are waiting to see if the Supreme Court will or will not “gut Obamacare”  by disallowing the payment of government subsidies for health insurance. Let’s think, for a moment, about the admission that preventing the government from paying subsidies for health insurance would “gut Obamacare.”

This was, going in, a process advertised as “health care reform”  which turned into “health insurance reform.”  But was it even that? Was it actually, as supporters claim, “landmark legislation”  and the “greatest piece of legislation in five generations?”  Did it, as claimed, rank in significance alongside legislation like Social Security and the original Medicare bill?

Health care costs more than three times as much per capita in this nation as it does in any other developed country. Obamacare says that not only will we not make any major efforts to reduce that cost, we will deliberately maintain that high cost and, instead, the government will pick up part of the cost for those who cannot afford it.

What nation does that? What nation not only maintains the high costs of a necessary service, but goes to the extent of providing government subsidies in order to maintain that high cost, and celebrates having done so? What voter base calls the imposition of subsidies which support high cost “landmark legislation”  and applauds and reelects the author?

Real reform and “making insurance affordable”  would involve allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices; it would allow the reimportation of medications from foreign countries; it would recognize legitimate medical degrees from other nations; it would modify drug patent laws; it would require cost-based pricing by medical providers The list goes on at length, and what started out as “health care reform”  touches on none of these things.

Obamacare should be gutted. Not because I am a Republican, but because it is not “landmark legislation,” but is a sufficient “band aid”  to reduce the demand for real reform. It leads the uninformed to think that it is “a first step in the right direction.”  It is nothing of the sort. It is insanity and stupidity which should be discarded so that conditions remain bad enough that the citizens continue to demand real reform.

1 comment:

  1. Bruce8:13 AM

    Not to mention that the premiums might be subsidized (ie, through taxes and deficit borrowing), but none of the out-of-pocket expenses are. And those are often as much as premiums, and if they can't afford the premium, what about the other costs?

    And all the other stuff you mentioned. But maybe the politicians have no balls, since they are being held by the lobbyists of all ilk. Political reform perhaps is needed as much as health care reform.