Gary Tutin . org     Obamacare: What lies ahead?
5 years and failing

The Unaffordable Care Act (UCA) became law five years ago. Congress did not pass it properly, it was rammed through using legislative chicanery. In fact, an election had replaced the needed vote (Ted Kennedy) with an opposing vote (Scott Brown). That did not stop proponents of big government from wresting control of the health-care insurance industry to endanger every American's health. More important, despite the name, it has nothing to do with health care. It only covers insurance, and not very well. Yet, President Obama says the law is “working even better than expected.” That suggests even he knew it would never work. There is no celebration because over half of the population in various polls believe Obamacare should be repealed.

16M get health care

By now, only the most credulous believe any statistics provided by the Obama Administration, who seem to count as “new” everyone who signs up, even if they already had other insurance. They also ignore millions who lost coverage, when their plans did not meet the bureaucratic guidelines created by Health and Human Services. They have counted individuals as insured who signed up, but never paid.

uninsured rate

The uninsured rate was 12.9% at the end of last year compared to 14.4% before the national nightmare began. But Obamacare was touted as exending coverage to everyone. That has not happened, nor is it projected to occur over the next decade. A majority of new coverage is provided by Medicaid, creating more problems.


True, but hardly something requiring an overhaul of the entire system. It could have been enacted as a regulation, with subsidies provided for insurers. Consider the phrasing. If your doctor diagnoses you with a terminal illness, giving you less than a year to live, you will be unable to buy life insurance, which is based on risk. If you know you are dying within twelve months, you are not facing an unknown risk, so it is not discriminatory for insurers to decline coverage.

no lifetime caps

Also true. Also could have been changed with a simple statute, provided insurance companies were compensated. Or, the government could have provided desperation health insurance for the chronically ill. Only that wouldn't have created giant new bureaucracies.


Again, it's the wording of this claim that is irksome. Women and men have different health needs, and use more health care. That is why they were charged more. Maybe it's not fair, but women live longer than men. Is that fair? Should women have to be euthenized if they live too long? Of course not. If women receive free birth control, should men get it too? In families, the differences in premiums balanced out. Once more, a simple change in law would have "fixed" this faux problem.


False! The promise: premiums would decrease by $2,500. The result: Premiums rose by more than $3,000 for families. In addition, the average deductible for a Bronze plan is $5,081 a-year, 42% higher than before. Under Obamacare, you must buy insurance, so you pay premiums for coverage that you may never qualify for, until you are out-of-pocket $5,000 few can afford.

children to 26

Children? A child is defined as someone under legal age, or not yet having reached puberty. A 25 year-old is no child. This extension has proved useful because adults under 26 cannot find jobs or a steady income source under Obama's policies, but no one asked parents if they want to cover the insurance costs of their adult offspring. This provision seems to have been intended to provide insurance for many who would not want, or be able to afford, their own insurance under Obamacare, since UCA coverage is too expensive.


The majority of new coverage is through Medicaid, a federal-state program that usually offers the lowest reimbursements to providers, causing many doctors not to accept Medicaid patients. That makes it harder for the neediest, who were receiving Medicaid coverage already, to find a doctor. So, patients may have insurance, but be unable to get a physician. Maybe that's why emergency-room visits have increased under the UCA, the opposite of what was promised. Remember: Insurance, not care.


new records   figures for February 2015

Obamacare does not need protecting, consumers do.

The Unaffordable Care Act is cynical legislation, full of compromises made to get every Democrat to vote for it, since not one Republican would. It never went through reconciliation, becaming law with many flaws that were going to be worked out, supposedly. Those who voted for it never read it.
(It was supposed to be posted for days on the Internet, to provide a comment period for Americans. That never happened.) Like unions, many who supported the massive federal takeover are having second thoughts about provisions such as the so-called Cadillac tax.

Most of its onerous requirements and taxes were backloaded, so the supposed benefits would become effective immediately, the objectionable parts years later. Since its passage, many of its provisions have been postponed by the President, illegally, often for political reasons. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was used to subsidise millions extralegally. The Supreme Court may rule those subsidies unconstitutional, wreaking havoc on an already shaky law.

Almost every promise made about the UCA before it became law has turned out to be a lie. Things like, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” Not a mistake, a lie.

After a massive overhaul of health insurance delivery, the main goals of lowering health-care costs and drastically reducing the number of uninsured have not happened, nor are they likely to. Obamacare does nothing to address spiraling costs or improve care, and does little to increase insurance enrollment. In fact, milions who have lost insurance that they liked are legally required to purchase another policy, whether they like it or not.

24 March 2015

Forbes on UCA haters
Reason on facing reality
Representative Schultz's foolish pride
Huffington Post can defend anything


©2015 GT Slade

Get Back   Home   Next