Wednesday, October 16, 2013

ObamaCare is flawed because of the Republicans. What?

What happens when the Democrats own a failed policy? They blame it on the Republicans anyway. As ObamaCare continues it's death spiral, they new template response. Here is an example from the Santa Cruz Sentinel blog web site.

The ACA is the best plan that Democrats could pass with obstructionist republicans. I wonder why insurance companies have spent so much money sowing misinformation and fear to stop a third payer system if it wouldn't work. Regardless the US has much to learn from other countries about how to provide healthcare.We need to have an alternative to insurance companies who basically make more money by denying care, it's a dumb system.

The President and Democrats have been trying to convince voters that the problem in Washington is the Republicans so called obstructionism. Certainly there can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with the help of President Obama has created the most partisan Congress in modern history. The plan for ObamaCare was simple, the Democrats knew, since they had the Presidency, a  filibuster proof Senate and near 2/3 of the House, there was no need to include the Republicans in any of the Health Care reform debates. But problems arose as a large number of the Democrats wanted the public option, but they knew it was not popular with the voters, and along with other issues compromises had to be made that would later come back to haunt them. So in their arrogance they passed a bill needing 100% agreement without the Republicans; the result stymied the Democratic Party and there lies the blame.Democrats;Their Own Worst Enemy Oh yes and not one aspect of ObamaCare that was promised to the American people by Candidate and President Obama came to fruition; NOT ONE! So no, the Republicans not only didn't obstruct ObamaCare, they weren't even invited to the party. That's right, only one Republican in the House voted for Obamacare and the vote was made long after ObamaCare had already passed. The obstructionist were all Democrats and ObamaCare was so full of pork that it was embarrassing even for the Democrats.

A very common comment about blaming the Republicans was it was the Heritage Foundation that came up with the concept of the individual mandate; this is a straw man on several levels. First the idea of an individual mandate has been floating around for years, certainly decades before the 1980's. Further as the Heritage Foundation says,

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance. (ObamaCare did away with these plans)

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement. Don't Blame the Heritage Foundation Individual for ObamaCare mandate

Next you have the "I wonder why insurance companies have spent so much money sowing misinformation and fear to stop a third payer system if it wouldn't work." What's so absurd about this argument is it didn't happen. The Public Option was favored by the House Democrats but no support with Democrat Senators. ObamaCare was written by Liz Fowler under the tutoledge of Sen Max Baucus while she was also, the VP for Wellpoint and a top adviser for Obama. ObamaCare was written in collusion with the private heath care industry and big Pharma (Obama vilifying the health care industry is more Obama smoke and lies; all the negotiations were done in secret, which was the height of corruption).

The other half of the blog letter states that the US is way behind the rest of the world because we don't have  National Healthcare. It doesn't matter that every country in the EU is going bankrupt because of raising healthcare. What liberal blogger fails to understand is by definition Single Payer Healthcare is a collectivist policy that addresses only the needs of the majority and is not designed to address the needs of the individual. In the US we are used to medical care being judged on a case by case budget.The best example of this was by our President when Candidate Obama explained national healthcare. This video is so damning many liberal bloggers swear it does not exist; in a way I wish they were right..



The woman, Jan Strum says that her mom, 5 years ago was 99 years old and her doctor said she needed a pace maker. One Medicare specialist said no the mom was too old, but the doctor made an appointment with another specialist so the specialist could personally see mom's joy of life..and the specialist said he would go for it; because of the surgery Jan Strum is now 105 YO and still kicking. The woman then asked how her mom would have fared with ObamaCare saying; Outside the medical criteria prolonging life for someone who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be driven for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, (or) a quality of life; or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?.

Before we get President Obama response, it is worth noting that there is really no medical criteria for prolonging life with Medicare. Jan Strum's own story about her mother shows the decision of whether her mom at 99 years old should get a pacemaker was left up to her doctors. So one wonders is Jan Strum knows that with ObamaCare these decisions would no longer be up to doctors, but by bureaucrats; in this case a panel controlled and dictated by Katherine Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Okay, back to President Obama's response, (W)ere not going to be able to solve every difficult problem in the end of life care... Maybe your mom would be better off not having the surgery and take the pain pill.  

The President's hubris here is off the scale. First why would any one in his position with a total lack of medical knowledge suggests that the alternative to a pace maker is a pain pill? (it's not) Second Jan Strum is asking about prolonging life of the elderly, while the President is replying with end of life care. This suggests Obama's world view doesn't  include prolonging the life of the elderly, but only end of life decisions that are easier to dictate via a formula and more financially controllable. Then you have Obama personalizing his belief system by actually using Jan Strum's mother as an exemplar of denying life prolonging surgery. He more than implies that the surgery on Jan Strum's mother should never have been  approved and suggests with his healthcare system it wouldn't have happened, even though it's validity had already been shown to be worth the expense.


No comments:

Post a Comment