Views on politics and life from a conservative point of view. Working to keep government limited, and our freedoms strong.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Obama Care: A Glide Path To Single Payer
The ramifications of Obama care passing are far reaching and ominous. There is no other way to describe a bill that will effect every single American for decades to come. Many would say the democrats are noble to put their majority as well as their jobs and careers on the line to insure 30 million more Americans. I say "poppycock." There is nothing noble about government intrusion into such a personal and serious aspect of an individuals life. Congress can do one thing and one thing only. They pass laws. Laws that say you can't do that, or you must do this. Laws can be good because they can limit abuse, or they can be bad because they restrict freedom. Obama Care is heavy on the latter.
Obama Care mandates every individual must carry health insurance. If that person refuses to carry insurance they will be levied a fine of 2.5% of income or $2,085.00. This aspect of Obama Care will ultimately be decided by the courts, because the federal government has never passed a law that would compel an individual to engage in commerce. The enforcers of this provision would be IRS agents, and the cost of Obama care does not account for 16.5 thousand new IRS agents to do just that. The Obama care advocates cite state regulations that require individuals to carry auto insurance as being comparable. Once again I say, "poppycock." First of all the state requirements are imposed on those who engage in a voluntary activity, (driving a car), on public roads. The federal health insurance mandate would apply to all. Second, the states only require you to carry liability insurance. Liability only protects a third party that you may injure or cause damage to their car, not yourself or your car. Another aspect of Obama care is to stop the exclusion by insurers for those with preexisting conditions. This most would applaud, but there are some unintended consequences to this provision. Let's assume the mandate to purchase health insurance passes constitutional muster. An individual decides because of the mandate that insurers must cover preexisting conditions, they will not purchase insurance, but instead pay the minimal fine, in comparison to higher insurance premiums. Then, when an illness over takes them they simply march into an insurance company that must insure them. This really is no longer insurance, and that may actually be the motive behind Obama Care. Insurance companies operate on a complicated risk cost analysis. People buy insurance as an insurance in the event of something happening that they have no control over. So their insurance premiums while healthy stabilize the insurance industry to pay for treatment in the event of illness. The fines that an individual pays for not insuring themselves goes to the federal government not the insurance companies. This will obviously either dramatically raise premiums, which would encourage fine paying rather then premium paying, and would ultimately put insurance companies out of business, which may actually be the primary motive of Obama Care.
Let's turn around the argument that many use in comparing the compulsion to auto insurance. We are mandated to purchase minimal liability insurance if driving on public roads, and an individual that is caught must pay a fine. If the comparisons were true to Obama Care the auto insurance industry would also have to insure in case of a pre-existing condition. In other words if I Had an accident without insurance, I could then walk in and demand that I now be insured. We can all see how absurd that would be. It would bankrupt the auto insurance industry, and people would risk getting caught without insurance and pay the fine, as long as they knew if they had an accident they could demand coverage.
We have all heard the speeches Obama has given to primarily liberal and union groups where he supports a single payer system. Could Obama Care be the glide path to a single payer system? He mentioned during the campaign that if we didn't have an employer based system, and were starting from scratch, he'd be a proponent of a single payer system. let's examine another aspect of Obama Care. The legislation requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide insurance or pay a penalty, $2,000 per employee with an exemption of the first 30 employees. Where would the incentive be to offer your employees insurance rather than paying the substantially smaller fines.
We see that through Obama Care, employer based insurance is being undermined, with the ultimate goal a single payer system, that would morph from employer based and then exchanges and pools, to complete government control. Businesses run on a bottom line mentality as well as individuals. When economic realities dictate that if the government is going to mandate that I be covered one way or another at less cost to my business or myself, most are going to take the less expensive route, and thus we have a race to the bottom. A government run single payer system with long lines and rationed care. Obama care is not a bill to insure 30 million more Americans, and reduce health care costs. It is indeed a glide path to a single payer, government run health insurance, that will require massive new taxes, and cause huge federal deficits. It will guarantee loss of health care choices and assuredly degenerate into inferior care. Check out my other blog.....Con-Men 4 Palin Link