While the Democrats are ranting that 8 million people will be thrown off of healthcare with the repeal of Obamacare as the House voted 239-186 to repeal this nightmare, it would have been far cheaper to just add those people to medicare than change everyone in the country of more than 300 million people. The hospitals and doctors wanted Obamacare and lobbied for it because there were people that they had to service without payment. They did not support this law for humanitarian reasons.
Under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), millions of Americans have signed up for private health insurance and for Medicaid, however exactly how many remains unclear. Nevertheless, to listen to the extreme left-wing TV commentators on MSNBC, one would think the world will end without Obamacare as if this has benefited the entire nation.
King v. Burwell, like the Halbig v. Burwell case, has a long history in the nation’s court system. On July 22, two U.S. courts delivered opposite rulings on the subsidies contained in Obamacare. Legal scholars and health policy experts have warned that the case is the biggest legal threat against Obamacare since 2012, when the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the law. It is the last case scheduled for the court’s next period.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the King v. Burwell case exposes a potential weakness in Obamacare. Here the Supreme Court will consider whether the Internal Review Service has the authority to expand the application of healthcare subsidies to federal exchanges. The subsidies are a key tool used under the law to drive individuals onto the government exchanges. Without the subsidies, fewer individuals would chose to purchase the government-mandated plans. Many many people lost their healthcare because of Obamacare – me included. My insurance virtually doubled in price under Blue Cross all because I was not covered for paternity leave. I had to start paying a portion of medicine bills for my 96 year-old mother that I did not previously. Nonetheless, only 14 states and the District of Columbia established state-based exchanges and even some of those (Oregon and Nevada) are backing out for 2015. In the remainder of states with exchanges, the federal government, not the state governments, established the exchanges.
These tax subsidies for low-income Americans are only available, through an Exchange established by a State under section 1311 of Obamacare. Federal exchanges are set up under Section 1321 of Obamacare – not Section 1311. Hence, the administration still wants to provide subsidies, even though the law doesn’t appear to authorize the handout. And there lies the problem to be decided by the Supreme Court. You would figure with a 7ft high bill, they would have got at least that correct.
American healthcare has been morphing from a function of a humanitarian society into a revenue stream for healthcare profits. Drug, medical device companies, hospitals, and insurance companies, are all in the business for profits and they all supported Obamacare because their profits would rise – not fall.
Then there is the legal profession that controls Congress. There is no prayer in hell of lawyers instituting caps on tort claims that drive insurance rates even higher. Doctors will often order tests they do not feel they need just to cover their ass against the lawyers.
In effect. we have transformed healthcare in the U.S. into an industry whose goal is to be profitable not some humanitarian pursuit as the Democrats claim. We have to call a spade a spade and stop pretending this is about caring for anyone. Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court as a tax, not as a social program.
- Princeton Economics