Obamacare Explained
October 14th, 2009 | EdWords | 25 Comments
Tweet
These days it’s hard to be more outrageous than the news. Given the increasingly hysterical attacks on the proposed health care reform, this piece, which I wrote a few weeks ago, may not be enough of an exaggeration to pass muster as satire. My fear is that the opposition will pick it up and run it verbatim as an ad.–Ed Stein
OBAMACARE EXPLAINED
Health care experts from the insurance and drug industries, talk radio and the Republican National Committee answer your questions about health care reform.
What is the general outline of the proposed reform?
The details of the various bills being considered in Congress vary, but all of them share a few common elements: a government takeover of your health care leading us inexorably down the path to despotic government, an end to personal freedom and a nightmare totalitarian state.
I like my insurance plan. Will I be able to keep it?
The socialized, anti-capitalist public option, unfairly underwritten by the government, will be so much cheaper that it will put all the private insurers out of business, leaving you with no other option. Worse, you will end up paying higher taxes to pay for insurance for millions of illegal immigrants, shiftless minorities and unemployed former insurance company employees.
Will I still be able to keep my own doctor?
Once the private insurers go broke, government run insurance will be the only option, and government bureaucrats will decide which doctors you can see. And because the pay doctors will get will be so low, the best ones will leave the profession to go into banking, leaving your health care in the hands of incompetent losers.
I heard that In Canada you have to wait forever to get treatment. Will that happen here?
Absolutely. In Canada, thanks to the kind of socialized medicine that Obama wants you to have, hundreds of thousands of people die every year because they have to wait so long to see a doctor. That’s why three out of every four people in American waiting rooms are actually desperate Canadians who came here for health care.
What happens if I have a pre-existing condition?
You will no longer be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. But if you do, you will have to face a death panel to determine if you deserve to be treated or should be forced to die.
What’s a death panel?
If you are 65 or older, you will be examined by a panel of government Medicare doctors to determine if you are suffering from a chronic or terminal illness. Because Medicare funds will be raided to pay for reform, only the healthy will be allowed to go on living. The rest of you will be given a choice of death by starvation or lethal injection (hanging or firing squad in Utah).
What will this reform cost me?
The Obama administration estimates that reform will cost the taxpayers $800 million over ten years, but we all know about government estimates. It will end up costing far more, paid for by your taxes. The non-partisan health care lobby estimates that each family of four will see your taxes go up by $400 million to pay for pay for health care for all the deadbeats who aren’t insured now, most of whom are minorities, gays and illegal immigrants.
What happens if I lose my job?
Right now, you’ll lose your employer-paid health insurance. That’s just part of the natural process of creative destruction in a capitalist society. It’s unfortunate, but you’ll be doing your part to keep our economy vibrant. Under Obamacare, you’ll be forced by the government to buy insurance, and you’ll probably only be able to afford a government plan, one that competes unfairly with a more expensive private plan. You’ll end up being a pawn in his plot to destroy our capitalist system and replace it with a socialist dictatorship.
I’m perfectly healthy. Will I be forced to buy insurance?
Yes. Even though you know what to do with your money better than some government bureaucrat, you will be forced to buy insurance. The health care reform being proposed is nothing more than a brazen attack on your right to make personal decisions.
What if I can’t afford to buy insurance?
The government nanny state will pay for it, removing yet one more incentive for Americans to take personal responsibility for their own well-being, weakening us as a nation and making us easy prey for our enemies at home and abroad.
But don’t we need reform?
Yes. Everyone agrees we need reform, but reform that will change the best health care system in the world in any way is the wrong way to go.
Topics: health care reform, Obamacare
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
You know Ed, I know you are being saterical, however, I have actually heard most of these answers already – and they were “sincere”. Almost all coming from either GOP congress persons or conservative talking heads. I put sincere in quotes because I don’t honestly believe that the folks saying these things truly believe them. They are sincere, though, in wanting helth care reforms stopped for various reasons, not the least of which is personal gain. Capitalism at its best!
P.S.
The really sad thing is that there is a very large group of folks who hear them and do sincerely believe these responses.
“But don’t we need reform?
Yes. Everyone agrees we need reform, but reform that will change the best health care system in the world in any way is the wrong way to go.”
Priceless!
-Rusty
On NBR this evening, they were interviewing Sen Grassley, Iowa (I know not the sharpest pencil in the box). But they asked him why he was against the Senate bill. His last objection was that “this was the first time in US history we were forcing someone to buy something”. The interviewer followed up “We make people buy car insurance”. His response was “Yea, and 12% of the people don’t..and anyway you don’t have to buy car insurance if you walk or ride a bike or take mass transit but if you get sick you have to have health care”. End of interview!?!
Why not “Senator, if you need health care and don’t buy insurance, who is going to pay the bill”? or after the first response “We make people pay Social Security Taxes”.
I don’t know why I expect more from PBS.
In retrospect, PBS probably knows that its viewership is likely to be a different group than those watching Fox News and could actually figure out Grassley’s lack of full deck on their own. Maybe it was one of those John Stewart moments. I bet it will be.
Here’s a question for those opposed:
What is the difference between Health Care, Social Security and Medicare?
Jerry — Not quite a good idea… the people against Health Care Reform are against all of those things too.
Yes and no.
I’ll bet you can’t find a single person in Congress that would admit to that….
And, what about all those town hall “shouters”? Almost all are currently on Social Security and Medicare.
You’re are right about the “Libertarian” types, though but they really are a small minority.
People against all these programs have everythng they need and don’t care about anyone else. This truly is a Me-Me-Me society. They worry about having to give up a Very small amount of what they have to help people they don’t know and absolutely don’t care about.
Foos, those are some pretty biting and univeral statements, which you are trying to derive from a few particulars. Speaking for myself and many other people I know who have similar political views, (nearly all of whom, myself included would be considered middle to lower-middle class,) we care about ALL people. We want to see everyone succeed, prosper, and live well. For this to be accomplished, a framework and system must be established that promotes well-being. Our opposition to what is being proposed for health care reform, or other government programs for that matter, is that they will fail in the long-term, if not the short-term. There are better paths to be taken.
P.S. I hope to soon comment on your health care proposal, because I like some of what I see in there.
Jerry, people are on social security and medicare by default. So to try and argue that they are hypocritical because they do not want or are against another government program, even though they are part of one by no choice of their own, does not hold water. If people were actively pursuing any form of government assistance, then theirs could be a case for hyprocisy. A co-worker of mine recently lost his father, who over the course of his career paid thousands and thousands into social security. He did not benefit one bit from it, and that retirement money, which could (should) have been saved as he saw fit, could have passed on to his heirs. Instead, it is gone into the system. If this is right, why stop there? It seems that an application of such principles and logic would have the estate of family, after passing, be liquidated and distributed to other people, as the government sees fit, in the name of the common good.
BG, I have to hand it to you, you are consistant. This argument is almost identical to what you suggested a short while back. (Seems like we have been debating this for a long time – too long).
It does have that Libertarian ring, don’t you think? Let me first say that I have no doubt that you can will take care of yourself just fine. You’re maxing out your 401K and IRA, of course. Not everyone has the discipline or the financial capacity to do the same. Contrary to your assertion, Social Security is not a retirement plan, it’s like insurance. It was and always has been intended to provide a baic level of support. In adddition, there was supposed to be your pension and your savings. As we all know pensions have pretty much disappeared but there are now 401Ks. I paid thousands over the years for private disability insurance and never collected a dime. Should I be complaining about getting my money back?
Also, it really isn’t true to say your co-worker’s father’s money is just “gone into the system”. If he has a wife or (one or more) ex-wives, they will all be able to collect. If he has both, they will more than get back between them what he put in, with interest.
Since you are middle to lower income, you simply are not paying that much in federal taxes to be complaining about the government taking everything you have and giving it to others. It’s simply not a valid comparison.
P.S. I don’t feel like Foos that everyone is selfish and doesn’t care. I do believe that a lot of folks can be easily mislead and don’t clearly think things through. Now how you and your friends with similar political views come to your conclusions does puzzle me but so do my farmer friends as I have mentioned before. I know they are caring people.
Tit for tat. The same statements provoke the same arguments. No, I am not maxing out the 401K, and I don’t have an IRA. In fact, I can’t contribute to my 401K right now due to recent salary cuts at my office and the suspension of employer match. If Social Security is not a retirement plan, but is “like” insurance, then what is it? Even if one was to say that it is insurance, it should be voluntary. The only righftully mandated insurance is auto, and that is because it’s primary purpose is to protect other drivers and their cars that you may hit. Your private disability insurance was your own choice, while Social Security’s is no one’s. It is mandated, much like what the Baucus Bill wants, though you only suffer monetary penalties there. So it’s more of a coercion.
My coworker’s father had no surviving spouse and when he (coworker) called Social Security, the explained to him that he was ineligible. So yes, the money is gone into the system. I pay plenty in taxes, and even if may tax bracket is lower, of course I can voice concern about ANY tax at ANY rate that I pay. People like to think it as charity, except it lacks that fundamental quality of it being done of free well. It otherwise bears no virtuous quality.
Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I guess I’m not necessarily selfish, I just don’t exercise my rational faculties.
I mis-wrote, and meant to simply say that “It bears no virtuous quality.”
BG, when I read your (and others) ardent philosophic opposition to health care reform, to anything and everything that might actually benefit us, on the grounds of an anti-government philosophy, I can’t help thinking how much you (and frankly all of us) have been dupes of that argument. While we’ve all been brainwashed into thinking that the free market system is our friend and the engine of creating wealth, the very people who have mouthed the most ardent arguments for deregulation and unfettered markets have been using government to game the system against us. Tax code, deregulation, and shifting banking and investment rules have transferred the wealth of this nation to a tiny percentage of the population, while working people find their wages flat, their buying power shrinking, two-income families a necessity, their health insurance increasingly elusive, their retirement problematical, the safety net in tatters, and yet the people hurt most by the vultures who have engineered this remain their most ardent supporters. At what point does reality trump philosophy?
By George, I think you’ve got it!! (re: using your rational facilities).
I can’t believe that you think that auto insurance is ok to be mandatory! You should know that allowing anything to be mandated is a slippery slope to socialism.
It’s ironic that just up this string I talk about the Sen Grassley interview. So, following up where the PBS interviewer didn’t: “BG, if you need health care and don’t buy insurance, who is going to pay the bill”? Say, you have a real serious problem that is going to cost $1 million? Are you telling me that your plan is to just throw in the towel?
P.S. If I understand your meaning that some folks say taxes are like charity, I totally disagree. Taxes are absolutely not like charity. They are a mandate. They means they are mandatory. If necessary, it should be by coersion. It would be nice if that weren’t necessary but every now and then, there are well intentioned people who just think they should have to pay their fair share to provide for the common good…..
As can happen, I mis-wrote. I meant to say in the last sentence ” people who just think they should NOT have to pay their fair share
Government mandates, or laws, does not equal socialism. Socialism is a state ownership of industry. And taxes are absolutely lawful. What is at the heart of the matter with all of these discussions is the rightful scope of government. Those parameters necessarily dictate rates of taxation. Excessive government equals excessive taxtation.
Talk is cheap, but I would never just “throw in a towel” in adverse circumstances. I would also not assume it to be my right to simply have my situation fixed by the government, no less one that is headed towards financial disaster. This goes beyond healthcare debate.
BG,
I’m confused. If you don’t have the money, you won’t throw in the towel and you won’t rely on the government to help; then exactly what is left for you to do? Rob a bank?
Fight hard to rebound using (legal) means within one’s own power. If all else fails, look to charitable organizations for temporary assistance. Places that people freely choose to support. They do exist.
People ought to realize that the reason welfare and povery are prevalent in our society is not because of “the man”, but because ambition, drive, and self-motivation become dumbed down by the realization of individuals that they do not need to work to survive and prosper. It’s known as the easy way out. However, this is not universally the case.
Wow, you certainly have some interesting ideas.
Poverty has always been the world. Last I heard, over 2 billion people (1/3 of the world’s population) was in poverty. I can guarantee you that it’s not because of the fact that “ambition, drive, and self-motivation become dumbed down by the realization of individuals that they do not need to work to survive and prosper”. But that’s another topic.
P.S. Good luck with getting that temporary charity assistance for your $1 million illness……and, oh, there is no rebounding without treatment. Expensive treatment.
Sorry to sound so callus BG. I’m really not usually quite so cynical about things, I’m just mad about the situation we are in with healthcare because I have a personal stake in it. I am worried about dyeing because I had a Very serious cancer that I was only given a 20% chance of defeating. The last time that I saw my doctor the tests came out OK, but he told me that he wanted to keep testing me every 90 days because I had a 90% chance of recurrence. Shortly after that the state cancelled my Medicaid due to budget cuts, that was a year ago. I went to the emergency room recently because of a concern over a lump and they would not give me any tests because the hospital would not approve the costs, just gave me Ibuprofen and sent me home.
I can’t work anymore because of complications from the operation and the chemo. Luckily I get disability at $1,026.00 a month. I am 50 so I don’t qualify for Medicare and I can’t afford Any insurance at Any price and even if I could afford it I couldn’t get coverage under the current system at any price because of the pre-existing condition.
The Only solution I can see to problems similar to mine and thousands of people like me is universal healthcare. If anyone has a better solution, please let me hear it.
My plan that I speak about on my blog really doesn’t go far enough in my opinion, I was just trying to give my opinion of what I think is needed under the possibilities that have been discussed about a ‘government option’ by the current politicians. Not that I think any of them are willing to go even that far.
Ed, I TOTALLY agree with your last statement.
Foos – Any words that I could write would be grossly insufficient to express sympathy with your plights. May God grant you complete, permanent restoration of your health.
From your account, it sounds as though you have been let down by both systems – the private insurance companies, as well as Medicaid.
Ed, regarding your last statement, you lash out at those at those in the private sector, at how they work the system, the government rules and regulations, to their advantage, and the detriment of others. So how does increasing government’s role in the situation fix this? Don’t they bear some substantial amount of responsibility, since they are the ones who legislate and approve what allows the evil corporations to run wild? So we increase the strength of one guilty party to try to diminish the strength of the other guilty party? Problem solved?
Yes, they do bear substantial responsibility. That is why they need to pass substantial reform to keep them from taking advantage of the system at the expense of the average people. The corporations certainly will not change the way they do things on their own. I also believe that “if a company is Too big to fail, then the company is simply Too Big”. I think Warren Buffett said that in an interview.
HIPAA eligible individual!
The above is a new term I very recently learned. My COBRA runs out 12/1/09 and I just got turned down for Individual Health Insurance – reason “multiple medical conditions”. Those are the only 3 words of explanation. So I decided to do some research after a friend (retired Admiral that worked in the Surgeon General’s office) said the words “you should be a HIPAA eligible individual”.
The bottom line is if you had group insurance, took COBRA and exausted it; you are entitled by HIPAA to individual coverage. Most states (acually the insurance companies in the state) have set up high risk pools to handle. They (ins. cos.) do that so they can charge a significantly higher premium but they are not allowed to turn you down or charge you a different rate tahn everyone else in the pool.
So, I’m applying today. The premiums are nose bleed, even with a $10,000 deductible but it is better than getting wiped out financially if something happens.
I believe Colorado has something called “Cover Colorado”.
Correction/clarification on premiums – you can’t get charged a different rate than someone else in the same age/sex bracket in the pool.