The Real Problem with The Affordable Care Act

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
The Real Problem with The Affordable Care Act

The Real Problem with The Affordable Care Act
By Todd Strandberg

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to make the Affordable Care Act - better known as Obamacare - the law of the land. With over 2,000 pages, the Act was one of the longest bills the Congress has ever passed. Obamacare is so complex, it will take years to fully implement.

The one area that garners the most attention is the requirement for everyone to have health insurance. In a shocking ruling on mandates, the Justices have handed the government the ability to regulate every facet of our lives.

Here is an explanation that provides an easy way to understand the ruling. “You are free to not eat broccoli, but if you don’t the government will impose a penalty on you. This penalty is really just a tax and since the government has the power to tax for all sorts of reasons, they can tax you if you don’t eat broccoli.”

In order to hand a victory to the Obama administration, the U.S. Supreme Court had to twist the Constitution into a pretzel. The government had argued that the Commerce Clause gave them the right to regulate health care. The justices ruled that using the Commerce Clause in this way was unconstitutional, but they rewrote the bill to make it valid in their eyes. The court said the taxing power of the federal government can be used to justify Obamacare.

President Obama very clearly argued this was not to be a tax on the American people. In 2009, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, interviewed Obama about the health care reform bill. Stephanopoulos said, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money and fining them if they don't. How is that not a tax increase?"

President Obama replied, "No, tha-tha-that's not true, George. Eh… for us to say that you've gotta take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is that we're not gonna have other people carrying your burdens for you, any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, "That is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of America. It hasn't even started yet, and the 10 year cost of the plan for the government is already estimated at two trillion dollars. It's insane to think we can afford this new burden with our nation already suffering an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion.

A key reason why the government needs to stay out of private business is the unintended consequences it’s interference always creates. One part of the Act says employers with less than 50 workers will be given an exemption. What this does is motivate businesses to fire workers or limit employee growth, causing them to stay under the 50 employee limit. Thousands of businesses will close or never be created because of the obstacles that this new regulation puts in the path of entrepreneurs.

Daniel Webster is credited for being the first to say, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Up until last week, the Supreme Court has been generally mindful of this danger. Congress now has a green light to use taxation to obliterate what remains of our civil liberties.

I could deal with Congress turning into a nanny state that wants me to eat broccoli. What concerns me is the government enacting rules that conflict with my core values. When the Communists took over North Korea, the state regulations were at first benign. Today, the citizens of that nation are dominated by a central authority that is so controlling, everyone is required to hang portraits of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on the “best” wall of their home. I'm sure the Democrats and the liberal media would view it as inspiring to have an image of Obama in every American home.

My ultimate concern with the Supreme Court ruling is how it factors into the Mark of the Beast prophecy. For years, I've wondered how the U.S. government would reach the point where it would force everyone to receive the Antichrist's mark. I now see how that scenario can easily be played out.

"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)

Todd
 

Meg

Well-Known Member
What it's saying is that we're not gonna have other people carrying your burdens for you
Zero lied. He made it so very low income people are now eligible for Federally funded Medicaid.
 

dave-o

Well-Known Member
This Act is so horrible and so are the doors it opens. You wait, very quickly it will be:

No health insurance? We can't hire you.
No health insurance, no drivers license.
Did you let your coverage lapse? That's a big ding on your credit score. Oh and a $250 "penalty" payable to your State.
Did you let your coverage lapse? Well that's child endangerment. Do it again and the State will take your kids.

Anyone who doesn't hate this bill and see how dangerous it is either incurably ignorant or out of their ever-loving mind.
 

froggy

Well-Known Member
Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare
Published: 2:20 PM 07/09/2012
By Sally Nelson

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

By 2025 the shortage will balloon to over 130,000, Len Marquez, the director of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, told The Daily Caller.

“One of our primary concerns is that you’ve got an aging physician workforce and you have these new beneficiaries — these newly insured people — coming through the system,” he said. “There will be strains and there will be physician shortages.”

The DPMA found that many doctors do not believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will lead to better access to medical care for the majority of Americans, co-founder of the DPMA Kathryn Serkes told TheDC.

“Doctors clearly understand what Washington does not — that a piece of paper that says you are ‘covered’ by insurance or ‘enrolled’ in Medicare or Medicaid does not translate to actual medical care when doctors can’t afford to see patients at the lowball payments, and patients have to jump through government and insurance company bureaucratic hoops,” she said.

Read more: Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare | The Daily Caller


Yup, you'll be "covered" all right. Covered by six feet of dirt before your doctors appointment ever arrives. All thanks to Obama's (Baldrick-to you Black Adder fans)]"cunning plan."
 

Duncanmc

Well-Known Member
This IS the great forgotten point. Insurance companies can be forced to cover more patients and for more ailments. Citizens can be forced to pay whether they want to or not but Doctors have a choice of whether and how much they will practice. Though I wouldn't put it past this administration to start conscripting physicians for service and threatening them with jail time. A relatively small amount of money (compared to the "stimulus") would put thousands of well qualified students through medical schools at public universities. Tuition could be paid by serving at a minimal income for 4-6 years. But the truth is that a huge part of the cost burden of medicine could be gone over night with tort reform. If doctors could only be sued for GROSS negligence and actual damages they caused then medicine would be MUCH less expensive to practice. I suspect that before all is said and done with these changes the average citizen will lose the right to litigate at all against "government" doctors.
 
Top