XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.usa
From: emoneyjoe@iglou.com
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 5:58:52 -0400, Ubiquitous
wrote:
>By Andrew B. Wilson
>
>If not struck down, it must be repealed.
>
>It was the kind of spectacle that policy wonks savor -- three days of dry
>and complex argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the
>constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as
>Obamacare.
>
>To cite a question that occupied a whole day of questioning: If the
>federal government can compel you to buy health insurance, can it also
>compel you to buy broccoli -- or anything else that it deems to be in
>your best interests?
>
>Should the Supreme Court uphold the law, it will signify that the act has
>met the minimal standard of constitutionality. Nothing more. The debate
>over constitutionality, however it is resolved, should not obscure the
>fact that the health care reform act is simply a bad law. Let us count
>the ways that it violates basic principles of sound policy.
>
>1. It exemplifies a legislate-in-haste-repent-at-leisure mentality. Few
>Senators and Congressmen had time to read the 2,700-page bill before it
>was brought to a vote. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously stated,
>"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."
>
>2. It violates the principle of impartiality. "When a bill is 2,700
>pages," as columnist/author Mark Steyn noted, "there is no equality:
>Instead, there's a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by unelected,
>unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy."
>Already the administration has granted a long list of exemptions to
>various companies and unions.
>
>3. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services dictated that
>employers, including religious organizations, must cover contraception
>and abortion-causing drugs in their health plans. Apart from any moral
>objections to such provisions, why should the federal government tell
>employers and employees what their health insurance has to cover?
>
>4. Good public policy would encourage health care consumers to shop
>around and purchase insurance policies that are best suited to their own
>needs and spending priorities. The health care reform bill does the
>opposite. Decision-making power is turned over to bureaucrats, who pay no
>price for decisions that are costly or wrong-headed.
>
>5, 6, and 7. Good public policy does not raise false expectations.
>Backers of the health reform bill violated this principle three times
>over. They promised a) anyone can "keep their plan if they like it'; b)
>the plan would mandate many new benefits and still reduce the average
>family premium by $2,500; and c) that it wouldn't add "a single dime" to
>the federal deficit. To review each of those points in turn:
>
>According to a McKinsey & Co. study, a third to a half of employers plan
>to stop offering health insurance beginning in 2014. Faced with expensive
>mandates and less expensive fines, many employers will choose the fines
>and cause their employees to move to government-sponsored plans.
>
>Another study concludes that a typical family health insurance plan
>costing $12,300 today will cost more than twice that by 2019. There are
>no "free" mandates or other benefits -- to paraphrase Milton Friedman.
>
>And finally, the administration has grudgingly acknowledged spiraling
>costs under its plan. Last October, the administration dropped the
>long-term care program known as the Class Program from implementation of
>the new law as financially unworkable. It also added $111 billion premium
>subsidies to its proposed fiscal 2013 budget.
>
>8. Good public policy avoids ticking time bombs. The health-care law is
>filled with them.
>
>The legislation will increase Medicaid enrollment by an estimated 24
>million new beneficiaries by 2015. Missouri and other states struggling
>to balance their budgets will pick up a significant share of the cost.
>
>The law includes a massive new health entitlement/income redistribution
>program for families earning more than three times the poverty level. In
>2014, it will channel up to $3,000 in taxpayers funds to families making
>up to $95,000.
>
>It also discriminates against young people, forcing them to purchase
>health insurance at inflated prices in order to subsidize older
>beneficiaries. Simultaneously, the law imposes severe penalties on young
>people who use Health Savings Accounts to secure health benefits for
>themselves in later years.
>
>9. The law is fiscally irresponsible. It includes a raft of new taxes.
>But these appear to be wholly inadequate to the task of paying the bill
>for over-promising and extending new entitlements to tens of millions of
>people. That leaves rationing as a last resort, and the government's own
>reports contemplate major cutbacks in Medicare spending down the road.
>
>10. The Affordable Care Act is truly unaffordableĊ and unsustainable.
>Perhaps the Supreme Court will strike it down. But whatever the Court
>decides, that does not excuse our elected representatives from their
>responsibilities. Our government should not erode our freedoms, degrade
>our quality of life, or bankrupt our future. The health care reform bill
>does all those things. If it is not struck down, it should be repealed.
Who the hell could afford $12,300 a year in health
insurance, going broke and filing bankruptcy every
10 years would be a better option.
When jerks making the laws are being paid
six figures, understanding what a dollar is becomes
distorted, minimum wage is $15,000 a year,
time to vote 'em all out.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
