Fighting for Our Lives: The Ten Worst Things About ObamaCare

The gauntlet has been laid down. With less than 50 days until the election, and what many agree will be the most significant political and philosophical decision point of our lifetimes, it’s time to take the gloves off. Not in terms of dirty politics, misleading television commercials or mud-slinging, but with regard to educating the American public about exactly what calamity will befall us if we do not vote President Obama out of the White House and repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The clock has run out; the time is nigh. Failure to repeal this legislation before it is fully implemented will have nothing less than devastating consequences for our country and our lives. Americans need to fully engage in this battle.

In writing the majority opinion of the Supreme Court and upholding the constitutionality of the ACA, Chief Justice John Roberts stated:  

“Members of this Court … possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

In so writing, Chief Justice Roberts challenged the American people to speak loudly and decisively with their votes on November 6^th. In the critical remaining days before this election, we need to be armed with the overwhelming and compelling facts about the travesty known as ObamaCare and we need to broadcast these truths from every pulpit:

1) ObamaCare will increase healthcare costs

Although one of the primary stated goals of ObamaCare was to bend the cost curve downward, the average price of a family policy has risen by $2,200 since passage of the law. Costs for families, individuals, doctors and hospitals are expected to rise further as additional components of the law are put in place. In addition to the direct impact on healthcare costs, ObamaCare will levy more than $569 billion in new taxes to offset its massive entitlement spending.  Many of these taxes have nothing to do with healthcare, including new taxes on bio-fuel, investment income, and tanning salons.

2) ObamaCare will increase the deficit

When the bill was passed in March 2010, leading House Democrats proclaimed that it would significantly reduce the deficit. Within less than 6 months of its passage, the CBO essentially doubled the cost estimates from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion and those same House Democrats were forced to admit that the bill was not even “budget neutral.” Current estimates put the cost of ObamaCare at over $2.6 trillion between 2014 and 2023. The reality of this bill’s monumental impact on increasing the deficit has become clear.

3) ObamaCare will limit patients’ healthcare choices

Despite President Obama’s promise that “you will be able to keep your health plan and your doctor” under the new system, that is far from likely; more and more physicians will refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients as a result of inadequate reimbursement from these programs. A large percentage of businesses will drop their current healthcare insurance plans rather than try to meet onerous requirements and rising costs. Furthermore, the law prohibits Americans from paying out of pocket for services that are not covered by healthcare insurance and makes it unlawful for physicians to render those services. This hardly constitutes legislation that promotes choice or provides any element of control to patients and their families!

4) ObamaCare will decrease quality

Think of all the people that you know who fly to Canada, Cuba or the United Kingdom for their healthcare. Can’t think of any? That’s not a coincidence. Government run healthcare systems rely on a capitated budget. What that gets you is rationing of services, long wait times and limited access to the newest drugs and latest technologies. Significant increases in the number of insured, combined with a host of new entitlements promised in ObamaCare, will tax the supply of practitioners beyond capacity. More than 60 percent of physicians say that the increase in patient volume will hurt the level of care they can provide. There will be a leveling of quality amongst physicians because physicians will no longer have to compete for patient business, they will lose their autonomy regarding patient care decisions and their incomes will be capped. The vast majority of physicians will ultimately become government employees and Americans will get exactly the type of compassionate and personalized care that we currently receive at the U.S. Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles.

5) ObamaCare will control decisions made by doctors and other healthcare providers

Make no mistake: ObamaCare represents a clear and absolute government takeover of the healthcare system. Federal bureaucrats – not physicians – will determine what healthcare benefits and services are “essential.” Doctors and hospitals will face a tsunami of new regulations and reporting requirements to ensure that they are following the government’s definition of “quality care.” Hundreds of pages of new “guidelines” have already been produced, aimed at “educating” practitioners on ways to “manage finite resources” and “limit overuse of services.” Everything from preventive care and screening services to chronic disease treatment protocols are being rewritten by government appointees and bureaucrats – not based on new scientific studies, but based on actuarial reports that evaluate the cost of services rendered. These new guidelines are nothing less than a thinly veiled manifest for healthcare rationing.

6) ObamaCare will decrease access to care and increase the physician shortage

What good is an insurance card in your wallet if there aren’t any doctors to see you? The United States was already facing a significant shortage of physicians prior to the passage of the ACA; studies have estimated that there will be a deficit of more than 69,000 doctors by 2015. Adding an additional 30 million people to the rolls of the insured will make that shortage worse. More importantly, increased patient volumes and decreased reimbursement is driving physicians out of practice; 43 percent say that they are considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the new law.

7) ObamaCare slashes Medicare

Maintaining his usual distant but cordial relationship with the truth, former President Bill Clinton proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention that the new legislation “does not cut Medicare services.” While technically correct, it is irrefutable that the ACA cuts $716 billion from Medicare, and those cuts will come from drastic reductions in payments to doctors and hospitals. Medicare actuaries predict that 40 percent of physicians will either go bankrupt or stop seeing Medicare patients altogether as a result of these cuts. So while ObamaCare may theoretically extend the life of the Medicare trust fund, the reality is that there will be no Medicare providers to staff it and seniors will be left with a worthless insurance subscription.

8) ObamaCare negatively impacts job creation

Small business is the engine for job growth in America. As a result of the “employer mandate” – that portion of the legislation that requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide government-approved health insurance for their workers or face federal fines – many companies will limit hiring in order to stay below the 50 employee minimum. Furthermore, as many as 60 percent of employers intend to increase the portion of premiums that workers are required to pay. Recent surveys indicate that others – as many as 35-40 percent – will simply stop providing coverage for their workers and opt to pay the fine, forcing employees to purchase their own insurance from state exchanges. The most powerful job creation plan Congress could enact would be to repeal ObamaCare!

9) ObamaCare violates religious freedom

Despite its many promises to the contrary, the Obama administration has refused to respect religious liberty in implementing the Affordable Care Act. The new law guarantees women access to “free” sterilization procedures and contraceptives, including drugs that are intended to induce abortions. At issue is the requirement that faith-based institutions such as Catholic universities and hospitals either violate fundamental tenets of their faith by providing the offending drugs and services in their employee healthcare plans or face the federal fines for failing to meet the employer mandate. Although HHS has promised to issue some type of “accommodation” following the election, it is unlikely that it will truly allow religious organizations and individuals to freely follow the teachings of their faith without government intrusion.

10) ObamaCare violates personal freedom

In a breathtaking assertion of congressional authority, for the first time in history, the federal government will force citizens to use their own money to purchase a product – healthcare insurance. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty for not complying is a “tax” does not attenuate this stunning conscription. Not only does it mean that Americans are compelled to purchase a product every month for the rest of their lives, but it reflects an intrusion of the government into our private lives in a way that was heretofore unimaginable.

Americans are just beginning to understand the misadventure that is ObamaCare. It is time that we accept Chief Justice Roberts’ challenge to protect ourselves from the consequences of our political choices. We must educate others on the facts about ObamaCare and the egregious assault it will levy on our personal liberties and healthcare as we know it. We must vote for the candidate who has vowed to repeal this abomination. Fight as if your life depends on it, because it does.

Entitlement Programs: Government Sanctioned Bondage

Responding to recent calls for entitlement program reform, Democratic Congressman, Henry Waxman proclaimed, “Republicans want to repeal the twentieth century.” In so doing, he further propagated the familiar liberal refrain that conservatives’ heartless approach to fiscal responsibility will somehow result in America “reverting back to” the dark and dangerous place that it was before the New Deal and the Great Society – You remember, when hordes of children were starving in the streets, and the elderly were left to die in the gutters?

As compelling as this revisionist history seems to be to liberals, the factual reality is that taking from others has never been a necessity of survival in this country.  The personal responsibility, hard work and independence that existed before the birth of the entitlement state resulted in a self-sufficient society where individuals took care of themselves.  Confidence and pride in this capability is what fueled America’s bitter battle for our independence from British sovereignty.  Prior to the birth of the welfare state, the vast majority of Americans were able to support themselves through productive work.  Those who fell on hard times relied on family, neighbors, church groups, local ethnic groups, and trade unions, rather than the government.  They exhausted personal savings, pursued private and commercial credit, and sacrificed on all but the bare necessities.  Today, most families living at or below the poverty line have cars, color televisions, and cell phones with data plans – none of which were provided by government entitlement programs.

Much has been written about the crippling cost of burgeoning entitlement programs – Medicaid, healthcare reform, welfare, housing and education subsidies, corporate bailouts -- and the inability of our local, state and federal governments to bear the growing financial burden.  These programs are clearly at the heart of our current financial crisis. But what of their unspoken costs; the insidious undermining of ingenuity, motivation, tenacity and drive –the very qualities that made America great?

There is a not-so-subtle numbing and demotivating effect that comes with the “free-lunch”.  Why sweat, struggle and persevere when an outstretched hand will garner the same reward?  Furthermore, repeated acceptance of handouts creates an on-going dependency – and growing commitment to – the giver, and a slow, steady abdication of freedom.  Even mother birds eventually, and predictably, push their young out of the nest.  That’s how they learn to fly.

Given Democrats’ recent consternation about Mitt Romney’s support of “unshackling” the private sector from onerous, job-killing regulations,--and the Vice President’s irresponsible retort that Republicans intend to “put ya’ll back in chains!” -- where is the moral outrage that our current entitlement policies are not only bringing us to our knees economically, but are functioning to enslave millions of Americans – Black, white, male, female, young and old?  An entire generation has forfeited any hope of self-sufficiency or independence in exchange for government freebies.  This time around, however, no one has been forced into involuntary servitude; instead, they have been lured, by the millions, into the lair of dependency, with the tantalizing promise of security and the chimera of “something for nothing”.  In the process, they have unwittingly traded personal freedom for the latest party favor.

Supporters of the welfare state will cry that any comparisons of entitlement programs to bondage are apocryphal and intentionally incendiary.  But make no mistake: Once the government controls and provides your food, your housing, your education and your healthcare, they own you.  They own you every bit as much as if you were picking cotton in their fields.  Physical chains have been replaced by economic and psychological ones, but the impact on the individual is the same. Ultimately, what allows men to be free is self-sufficiency -- the ability to choose and control where to live, what school to attend and what doctor to see.  Once an individual becomes reliant on the government for these services, and once the entitlement becomes ingrained in the culture, financial and emotional enslavement ensues. In each case, the recipient trades independence and free choice for the handout.

Liberal politicians always want us to believe that they have launched a “free-lunch” program that is intended to address some gaping chasm that will otherwise swallow leagues of under-privileged and downtrodden citizens.  But surely no one truly believes there is such a thing as a “free lunch”. Politicians, and the government institutions they control, always want something in return. Ultimately, their goal is not to provide improved nutrition or to keep the poor from starving, but to create dependency. Dependency on entitlement programs translates into votes, political support and control. Empowerment and self-sufficiency make for a healthier and more resilient society, but dependency is what gets politicians elected.

Despite the country’s dire financial situation, the current administration has upped the ante even further: They have expanded their approach from ensuring that entitlement programs are available, to actively recruiting people to sign up for them.  A recent set of radio ads features two women out on a shopping excursion when one exclaims to the other “My, but you sure do look good these days!”  Her friend explains that her new, attractive figure is a result of improved nutrition since she has signed up for food stamps.  She goes on to encourage her friend to do the same: “It’s easy -- You can sign up too!” Democrats are actively pursuing new members to join the dole!  What was once perceived as shameful and a resource of last resort has been elevated to high-fashion status.

In retail, every season has its sales theme that directs consumer marketing; we have “White Sales” in the spring, “Father’s Day Sales” in June, “Labor Day Sales” in September, and we will have non-stop “Free Lunch Sales” between now and the November election.  Liberal politicians will work desperately to garner votes by promising to both protect current handouts and to expand entitlement programs even further. 

Promulgators of entitlement programs would have us believe that anything not provided by the government will directly result in deprivation of the populace: if you cut school lunch subsidies, children will starve, and if we fail to provide free healthcare, people will die on the streets. And the entitlement mentality that has become so prolific in this country will lull the masses into further submission and dependency. Liberals will continue to tell their tale of impending misery if program cutbacks are allowed to occur, while conservative politicians will be buried in a heap of opprobrium for simply attempting to rein in spending and balance the budget. In the words of Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) "We [conservatives] reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock."

In a recent prayer for our nation, American Christian Evangelist, Billy Graham, offered “Your Word says 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare… We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem. We have abused power and called it politics… We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.”

And we have allowed politicians to disguise control as a “free lunch program” and called it entitlement.

America cannot and will not return to greatness until we break free from our current entitlement mentality, and elevate self-reliance, tenacity and personal responsibility to their former iconic status.

Of Medicaid, State Budgets and Government Coercion

On June 28, 2012, the Affordable Care Act received a highly controversial stay of execution from the Supreme Court; in a 5:4 decision, the Justices ruled that the individual mandate does not represent a constitutional over-reach, and that the entire bill should fundamentally remain intact.

This historic decision will reshape the American healthcare system, perhaps irreversibly, and going forward, will serve as legal precedent for the highly manipulative use of taxation to further facilitate usurpation of our rights.

Regardless of the recent High Court ruling however, individual states would have been left to contend with escalating healthcare costs and burgeoning uninsured populations – A fact that even relegating ObamaCare to the gallows would not adequately address.  The fact is that current Medicaid spending for low-income American consumes twice the percentage of most states’ budgets than it did just 25 years ago, and this spending is simply not sustainable.

Across the United States, 20% of the total population is enrolled in Medicaid, with Utah setting the lowest percentage at 11%, and California marking the high at 30%. Total Medicaid spending in 2010 was $390B, $126B of which was borne by the states themselves.

ObamaCare was designed to include a significant expansion of Medicaid eligibility, ultimately intending to bring an additional 17 million low-income Americans into its fold.  Although the Federal government is slated to cover the costs of the expansion initially, subsequent increased costs will be on the States’ tabs.  Even had the “Affordable Care Act” been struck down in its entirety, however, the flailing economy and weak jobs market has caused Medicaid rosters to explode.  Most states are feeling the crushing impact of their growing Medicaid populations: The number of Texas residents who qualified for the program doubled from 2000 to 2011. State officials say the new federal law will no doubt deal Texas another financial blow as they struggle to cover an additional 1.8 million low-income residents, but the problem was already well established.  Likewise, Medicaid enrollment in Colorado increased nearly 58% between January 2007 and December 2011 as a result of the economic downturn and the State’s own program eligibility expansion. Add to that another half-million or so new Colorado Medicaid enrollees courtesy of ObamaCare, and one begins to understand the magnitude of the problem. States can afford just so many lining up at the trough.

The burden of providing health insurance to low-income residents has become so onerous that a number of states are now working to craft their own solutions to rising costs and the uninsured. Vermont, for example, has a plan to replace its traditional insurance model with a single-payer system. In their plan, the state would act as a publically funded and managed insurer, setting reimbursement rates and paying healthcare providers itself, much like the Canadian system. Once again, however, the devil is in the details; no one has yet figured out how to pay for such a plan.  It is not a blind leap to suspect that hefty new taxes and serious restrictions on healthcare choices will have to be part any large-scale state-administered insurance program. 

As the States struggle to deal with the growing Medicaid liability, it is worth noting that while Obama’s reform plan remains wildly unpopular, the GOP has yet to launch a credible alternative that has garnered the support of the populace either.  Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare was not widely embraced, and other “plans” suggested by conservatives have been long on rhetoric and short on detail. 

In a recent opinion piece, political analyst, Scott Rasmussen, posited that lack of consumer involvement and control was ultimately responsible for our healthcare insurance crisis.  According to Rasmussen, “Both plans [Obama’s and Ryan’s] are unpopular because neither one puts consumers in charge of their own health care decisions. More than anything else, that lack of consumer control is the root cause of the health care problems facing our nation today.”  Even apart from consumers’ lack of personal and fiscal accountability regarding health and life-style decisions, Rasmussen has a point when it comes to the acquisition of health insurance.

First, Rasmussen’s argument gets to the proverbial “carrot vs. stick” dilemma: ObamaCare was designed for ultimate governmental control over the system, and it intends to employ a hefty stick, in the name of a tax, to levy on those who do not comply with the mandate to buy insurance. Second, is the more subtle and more insidious fact that people do not place the same value or appreciation to those things that are either chosen for them or forced upon them.  

A more palatable approach would be to align incentives such that consumers are motivated to purchase their own insurance, and to arm them with tools to make the most prudent and informed choices for themselves and their families.  This includes the multitude who are currently preparing to be embraced by the newly expanded Medicaid cloak, many of whom might be inclined to seek out private insurance rather than settle for the public option if they were appropriately enticed to do so.  Let’s face it: Does anyone really think that the public option will be a better one than private insurance?  Public housing with a fresh coat of paint is still public housing; and most people would far prefer another alternative.  Since most Americans recognize that it isn’t in the country’s best interest to have millions of uninsured citizens drawing resources from the system, the challenge becomes how to approximate “universal coverage” on a more voluntary basis.

For the 50% of the population that actually pays taxes, offering broader tax incentives would likely result in more people voluntarily buying insurance.

Rather than companies providing insurance for their employees, workers should be allowed to use employer designated monies, as pre-tax dollars, to pick their own insurance plans, supplementing with personal funds if the plan chosen costs more than the company has allocated, and perhaps keeping the surplus if they opt for a less expensive one.  Part and parcel with such an approach is to have a wide variety of competing insurance plans for employees to consider, including options with both high and low deductibles and corresponding premiums.

People should be able to buy insurance policies across state lines, and take their policies with them should they leave and choose other employment.

It is also high time to end the federal antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies, eliminating price-fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations.

Lastly, and not insignificantly, healthcare insurance companies should be allowed to offer attractive discounts to subscribers who make proactive healthy life-style choices such as maintaining a normal BMI, exercising regularly and not smoking, in the same way that auto insurers reward safe driving records and homeowner’s insurers incentivize fire suppression systems.

All of this would result in increased free-market competition among insurance companies, and would likely do more to drive down costs than any amount of government interference or regulation.

Many of these same strategies could be instituted for the newest population of Americans who are heading to flood the Medicaid program.

Rather than further burdening the states to provide additional residents with subsidies in the form of Medicaid -- and rather than trying to strong-arm citizens to purchase insurance for fear of the tax hammer -- aligning incentives to drive consumer engagement and desired behaviors, and empowering people with information to make informed decisions about their healthcare is a far more worthwhile approach.