|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 29, 2010 21:09:24 GMT -8
Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are celebrating their successful passing of a health care law that is, to the say the least, very controversial. For the first time in history a hugely portentous new law affecting the whole country has been forced through by the majority party despite the solid opposition of the minority, a substantial majority of the general public, and even a not insignificant number of their own ranks. Such a deal is nothing if not a huge gamble. What will the public think of the new government controlled health care system a decade from now? Or two decades? Might this be heralded as a great achievement that benefits all, or might it just as easily be seen as a patchwork gizmo that has very serious deleterious effects on the whole country? If the former turns out to be true, the Left will be hailed as heroes of the common man. If the latter is the case, the rejoicing on the Left will be revealed to have been quite premature. www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare%E2%80%99s-consequenceAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Mar 30, 2010 8:18:33 GMT -8
You are correct. It is a huge gamble by the Democrats. I also believe that in its current form, as a massive subsidy to the insurance industry, it will fail. The only way this could succeed is if it morphs into true universal health care where the motive to squeeze every dime out of both the patient and the provider for the benefit of the insurance company is eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Mar 30, 2010 11:15:19 GMT -8
I just wonder how the legal battle will turn out. On the surface it would seem that forcing people to buy the insurance under penalty of law even under the commerce clause will be found unconstitutional.
The other thing that before long the people will see what a horrible idea the rationing and increased costs will be and repeal and replace it with something that is sustainable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 30, 2010 11:32:42 GMT -8
You are correct. It is a huge gamble by the Democrats. I also believe that in its current form, as a massive subsidy to the insurance industry, it will fail. The only way this could succeed is if it morphs into true universal health care where the motive to squeeze every dime out of both the patient and the provider for the benefit of the insurance company is eliminated. The insurance companies have been vilified by the Democrats, which is a very dangerous game to start playing. Just what area of the economy will they target next? We should remember that a large percentage of insurance companies (perhaps a majority) are non-profit to begin with. You never hear Obama mention that. Nor does he mention the fact that MediCare denies requests for reimbursement more than any private company. If I understand it correctly, the current setup is this. All insurance companies must take all applicants, even those who have costly medical problems. Sounds great. . . very humanitarian. Sure, that would be very nice, but there are problems. The insurance companies might like to expand their roles of clients, but many may choose not to sign up. If a lot of citizens decide to pay the fine (which is less) rather than get insurance, the insurance companies will be in a bind. The assumption has been that younger, healthier persons not now covered would be paying for the oldsters with lots of medical problems. That may not happen. If insurers cannot reject you, regardless of one's age, why NOT wait to buy insurance until you really need it ? That is a lousy business model for an insurance company. For example, you couldn't expect fire insurance companies to survive if people wait to ask to buy fire insurance after their houses have half burned to the ground. Even the President himself conceded that economic fact in one of his many speeches. There is another aspect that has not been brought up. Insurance companies continue to be run on a state-by-state basis under the new law. ObamaCare failed to do one of the most sensible things, namely allow companies to compete nation-wide as do auto insurance companies. Anyway, as insurance company costs go up due to insuring people with costly conditions, the state regulatory agencies are likely to put the brakes on insurance premium increases. In the long run, the Govt. is going to be the ONLY insurance company going. Then those who wanted single-payer will be happy. Some of them will be REALLY happy since they have written the law to that they, those who actually wrote the new law, will not be subject to it! How does that strike you?  AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 30, 2010 11:35:51 GMT -8
I just wonder how the legal battle will turn out. On the surface it would seem that forcing people to buy the insurance under penalty of law even under the commerce clause will be found unconstitutional. The other thing that before long the people will see what a horrible idea the rationing and increased costs will be and repeal and replace it with something that is sustainable. As I see it, a mistake made by opponents of ObamaCare is to focus too much attention on the law's costs and not enough on the inevitable rise of health care rationing. Unfortunately, that part of the law may not become obvious to all before the benefits provided in the law have become sacrosanct in the minds of the public. AzWm |
|
