Recently, I was in a discussion about the prospect of a second term for our president, Barack Obama. My right wing friend was crowing about the soon-to-be-decided outcome of the Affordable Care Act and its constitutional question. I don't know how this will turn out, but I am encouraged about our president's chances for re-election.
Well, Obama has great poll numbers. The GOP has managed to destroy any base they may have had with women, Hispanics or youth. And, then there is the Affordable Care Act. There are many people already benefiting from this act. If, the Supreme Court does declare it as unconstitutional I am of a mind to say OK.
All the fallout from such a political bomb will fall on the GOP shoulders. There will be so much heart-breaking change for so many people who can't afford medical insurance coverage, can't be approved for coverage if they can afford it and can't change jobs because of the need to keep the coverage they need. Will the voters like it when big med and big pharm see record stock price increases?
You see, they will no longer have to control how they manage their margins so that 80 percent goes to care of premium payers. It will be the "good old days" again for all the medical industry special interest groups. So while coverage will be denied to those that want to buy coverage the medical insurance companies will make billions in the "so called" free market.
"Obamacare" was already working to provide coverage for those that were being denied coverage. Why do people without coverage go to the emergency room for help ? The cost to all of us is very high when they get treated in the ER. And, the care they get in the emergency room is not what it should be because most of these medical problems could have been more efficiently managed with preventable care that comes from having a medical plan.
The "Obamacare" Affordable Care Act would take care of this problem. Well then, if the Supreme Court in the land declares a law to be unconstitutional then the law was wrong, right? Maybe in civics class, but in the real-world politics of Washington, D.C., I am thinking that there is a pretty clear 5-to-4 party line voting history in the current court.
Which brings it all back to re-reelecting Obama in November and changing the court more in this liberal's favor.
The actual report states "Those amounts do not encompass all of the budgetary impacts of the ACA because that legislation has many other provisions, including some that will cause significant reductions in Medicare spending and others that will generate added tax revenues, relative to what would have occurred under prior law. CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated." http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
I will disagree on the healthy adult think; my parents are in their 70s and very healthy; and we have a lot of members of the Atlanta Outdoor Club in their 60s and 70s that are active, healthy, and fit. I don't really think age is an excuse here; that is just when people who have not practiced preventative care their whole life begin to see their bodies decline. As American's we spend the lowest % of our income on food in the world, and the highest in medical. It's not a coincidence; people need to change their mindsets in this country to make healthy eating priority #1.
We sure love to over-complicate things here in America.
Early on it starts with this assumption which I quote "Further, as the economy recovers, revenue increases and spending decreases". Can we all laugh together? Spending decreases...yeah right. This is Barak "1.3 trillion dollar deficit a year" Obama. He can't use "spending" and "decreases" in the same sentence. What a hoot. But here's the kicker and you have to read to page 5 to find it...again...I quote "Under the Baseline Extended simulation, revenues as a share of the economy are higher and discretionary spending is lower than historical averages". MAGAWD BRIAN...discretionary spending is lower than historical averages? Under Obama?????? Brian, as usual, you help me make my point but frankly I don't need the help. Obamacare is not only unconstitutional but is terrible legislation otherwise. We could do the good parts of the bill (and yes there are some...you can't make people eat poison if there's no candy) and SO MUCH MORE if the real reason for the reform wasn't a power grab and "transforming America" into communism.
I don't mean this note to critique anyone's views but rather I present this with a hope that a more fact based process will be undertaken away from the political considerations. We should be able to help people in need and those with severe medical problems without having the taxpayers foot the bill for individual, personal care decisions. In the end, the Supreme Court Decision is not what is important. If they strike it down, we have a system that all agree needs reform. If they don't, we have a new process that will cause more harm than good and will surely bankrupt us. Personal responsibility and free market innovation in healthcare practices are needed along with some sensible catastrophic protections/ help for our most needy.
The math is always wrong by the right. How about the additional growth in the economy when the medical system is Not in the way od commerce. as it is today many decisions are being made because of medical insurance not whats best to earn money. Lots of growth being stunted by the current system. Dollars being wasted.
Go back and read the definition for the Baseline Extended Simulation which includes current assumptions on entitlements plus the impact of both Obamacare and the recently passed Budget Control Act. It also assumes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Under that scenario the GAO does indeed project that for the next decade "revenues as a share of the economy are higher and discretionary spending is lower than historical averages". I'm pretty sure those folks know a lpt more about this stuff than you or I. Sounds like Obama's doing a pretty good job to me. Sorry if the truth is in conflict with the GOP's manufactured version of reality..
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/us-usa-court-kagan-idUSBRE83410E20120405
Have I read the CBO report? You betcha. Brian...do YOU know how the CBO must operate BY LAW? ObamaCare showed a phantom debt reduction because it had 6 years of service funded by 10 years of taxes. But you being a left-left-left wing hysteria propagator rarely actually do the math do you? Those dang facts just suck don't they Brian. The CBO is REQUIRED BY LAW to score the bill as written regardless of reality. If the bill said they were going to pay for OC by selling Elephant steaks at 500,000/pound the CBO **MUST** score it using 500,000/pound Elephant steaks. When 10 years of service and revenue are actually scored factually...OMG...the cost more than doubles and your phantom deficit reduction morphs into more and more ObamaDebt. Of course...any rationally thinking person knew that already.
The key here is that all other things are not equal. We have President Obama who has successfuly increased the national debt by more than any other President in history. He makes the previous President look like a spend thrift. Projections for FY2012 are 1.3+ trillion dollars alone. Taking OC out of the equation for a moment...how much do interest payments ALONE increase? Monies going for interest payments are funds that could otherwise be used for business investment/expansion. That means a stronger economy which means a LOT more revenue. Consequently ObamaDebt is raping our economy which is one of the reasons for this pathetic "recovery". Revenues will not expand above historical averages and discretionary spending falling below historical averages are words President Obama can't use in a sentence. Won't happen. You also note the assumption of the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. That would be a further drag on the economic "recovery" making it even more unlikely for the senario predicted by the GAO to occur.
When the CBO, ***as required by law***, scored the bill it had to take it as written. The bill contained 10 years of revenue funding 6 years of services. Unfortunately that senario doesn't continue and once the system has to be fully funded it costs about twice what was advertised. But leave it to Obama and his socialism/communism to try to make the public believe that you can lower the debt by spending more.
Class was already identified as unworkable in ACA and was an important source of funding. Class was the Long Term care program. We were going to pay in premiums for a number of years before benefits were dispersed. The change in Class happened when better data was developed and the results were way off the projections (these projected benefits were low anyway and below actual LTC costs). Class is probably the tip of the iceberg. We are already seeing a shift from an employer supported market to the individual market which could shift more cost to middle class consumers despite what you might hear on the campaign trail. Do we know what will happen to premiums when coverage standards are applied at the exchanges? Other possible outcomes: Capitation reducing healthcare supply or more medical practices opting out of the insurance program and going concierge/fee. My main disappointment and personal opinion is that this has been built on a political foundation(not the best approach). Personal responsibility and free market innovation in healthcare practices are needed along with some sensible catastrophic protections/ help for our most needy.
The United States spends the most money in the world on its health care system, as a percentage of GDP, and ranks 37th in overall performance. Healthcare reform is a step in the right direction - I'm hopeful we are on our way to a universal, single payer system. May everyone live healthy, be healthy, and enjoy a long healthy life. :-)
Simply pathetic.
As for David's comment below that most people wouldn't do it - that's OK David. Your choice! But you get to live with the consequences of that decision. Maybe you'll come out ahead, maybe not. But we should all be responsible for our own health care.