The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

After ObamaCare

Posted on | December 18, 2013 | 47 Comments

Guest Blog by Dana from Ohio

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (aka Obamacare or the ACA) is proving to be difficult to implement. Can it be fixed?

It was difficult legislation to comprehend and difficult legislation to pass. It passed even though a majority of the U.S. was against it. It has endured court challenges and is still facing a few. It’s the court case that has yet to be filed that may stop this “train wreck.”

Active court cases focus on the funding of subsidies for health plans purchased on the federal exchange versus the state exchanges. The legislation set up subsidies for plans purchased through the state-based exchanges but made no provisions for plans acquired through the federal exchange. The real challenge will be when the individual mandate kicks in. Once the individual mandate is imposed legal standing to challenge it can be established.

The Obama administration had to go back on calling the individual mandate a penalty. It argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax and not a penalty. The legislation held up because the individual mandate was deemed constitutional as a tax. But what kind of tax is it going to be? It’s not a sales tax, an excise tax nor an income tax. It’s a tax on…. nothing. It’s a tax for not doing as we’re told; a tax on bad behavior. It’s a tax on just being a citizen of this country. How can such a “tax” stand?

The ACA is barely standing under its own weight. The individual mandate will bury it.

The question before the nation is not “Can we fix Obamacare?” but rather “What are we going to do after Obamacare?”

 


Category: Health Care

Comments

47 Responses to “After ObamaCare”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    December 18th, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

    We need to go back to what we had and scrap this legislation completely.

  2. Neo
    December 18th, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

    If the SCOTUS actually would read the 9th Amendment, this thing would have been toast a long time ago.

  3. Lemuel Vargas
    December 18th, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

    There is a 3rd alternative to vote for. They are the Tea Party candidates who espouses smaller government, reduction and elimination of the fed deficit and believes in Sarah Palin’s core principle w/c is fighting the legal corruption (or as Sarah said nicely, crony capitalism).
    And lastly, those who are for the repeal of Obamacare.

  4. Lemuel Vargas
    December 18th, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

    A 3rd alternative would be to vote Tea Party candidates who espouses smaller government, reduction and elimination of the fed deficit and believes in Sarah Palin’s core principle w/c is fighting the legal corruption (or as Sarah said nicely, crony capitalism).

    And lastly, those who are for the repeal of Obamacare.

  5. Zohydro
    December 18th, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

    This whole thing was designed to fail as a set up to institute socialised medicine…

  6. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 1:53 pm

    The only problem with the Tea Party, is they are just as guilty as Liberals with telling people how to live their lives. Fiscal policies are solid at the Tea Party. The hard-line personal choice platform is a joke. If I want to smoke marijuana, no politician should be able to tell me I can’t. If my neighbor wants to marry a gay man, so be it – that’s his choice. Who is any politician, or party, to decide, the boundaries of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Rand Paul is a much better candidate than Ted Cruz, for these reasons.

  7. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 3:07 pm

    Then it should be my choice not to recognize a gay “marriage”, right?

    If you’re going to have the state involved in defining what constitutes a valid marriage, then as a citizen it is my business what that definition is.

  8. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

    It’s your right not to be gay, and not to be married. Why are you so concerned about who your neighbor loves, how they want to live their lives? No special benefits would be paid to them through state funds, that are not available to traditionally married people. Why are you so concerned with someone who lives a different lifestyle than you, obtaining equal rights?

  9. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 3:54 pm

    Why are you so concerned with forcing your morality on me?

  10. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

    You can define it, however you want – I don’t care. I wouldn’t even be opposed to reserving the word “marriage” for heterosexual beings. Civil Union would be fine with me. But every state law that is written, when it comes to marriage for purposes of insurance, tax returns, loan qualifications, needs to be rewritten in a language which includes civil unions the same way marriage is.

  11. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 4:13 pm

    I’m not telling anyone to shut up. For the longest time, gay couples have not been able to benefit from joint tax returns, spousal insurance coverage, and combined income to qualify for loans. That’s wrong, no matter how you look at it.

  12. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 4:44 pm

    This, and below, are fine, and not opposed by any traditional marriage advocates that I know. We do redefining homosexual “civil unions” as “marriage”: the two institutions are neither alike nor equal.

  13. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 4:55 pm

    From my understanding of what the gay community really wants, without being gay myself – is equality in the marketplace, under the law. That is the basis of equality. Not a word. You sound like a reasonable man who wishes to preserve the word marriage, to a religious ceremony – a sacrament of a Church. That’s fine by me. What do you think it should be called when a man and woman go through this unification process in the courts, as opposed to a Church?

  14. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 4:57 pm

    “Civil Union” seemed fine to me.

  15. robcrawford2
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

    “The only problem with the Tea Party, is they are just as guilty as Liberals with telling people how to live their lives.”

    And you say this because a left-fascist told you it was true.

    GFY, useful idiot.

  16. robcrawford2
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

    “For the longest time, gay couples have not been able to benefit from joint tax returns, spousal insurance coverage, and combined income to qualify for loans. ”

    Neither can single people.

    Why don’t “gays” grow the hell up and stop demanding to be treated just like what they claim to be proud they’re not?

  17. robcrawford2
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

    “Civil union” can’t be used as a cudgel against churches.

  18. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:21 pm

    Gay Couples, who have made a civil union through the courts. How is that different than a heterosexual Couple, that has made a civil union through the courts?

  19. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

    Why so angry? How has a gay man harmed you?

  20. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:23 pm

    Which, of course, is entirely the point. It’s not about “tolerance”, “equal rights”, or any other damn thing: it’s about the marginalization and silencing of anyone and everyone who does not wholeheartedly approve of homosexual relations and consider them morally equal to heterosexual relations. Anyone who says different is either fooling himself or trying to sell you something.

  21. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:28 pm

    It’s your right to say whatever you want about your religious belief as it comes to homosexuality. I agree with you on this. You should be able to say whatever you want to say, and not be crucified by public opinion. It is your religious belief, protected by the Constitution.

    But so is “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” to ALL Americans.

  22. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:30 pm

    …which has absolutely nothing to do with re-defining marriage.

  23. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:34 pm

    Why are you so bent on the definition of a word? Why not take the high road, and consider what you and your wife have – “Holy Matrimony.” You are obviously concerned about the religious implications of allowing a gay couple to say they are married. As far as I know, the Catholic Church still doesn’t let gay couples receive the sacrament of “Holy Matrimony”. Shouldn’t that be enough for your need to be distinguished?

  24. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Do you get pi$$ed when people are married in court, as opposed to the “eyes of God” and still call it marriage?

  25. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:43 pm

    You keep shifting your argument. A couple of comments ago, you’re OK with homosexual unions being “civil unions” as long as they “benefit from joint tax returns, spousal insurance coverage, and combined income to qualify for loans”. Now you insist that I’m the one “bent” on the definition of a word (rather than, more accurately, gay marriage activists being bent on changing that definition), laughably arguing that if heterosexuals surrender the word “marriage” that we’ll still have “Holy Matrimony”, so what’s the fuss?

    Why on earth would gay marriage advocates stop short of demanding “Holy Matrimony” for their unions as well? You know, to be truly equal… They won’t, and you damn well know it.

  26. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

    Listen to yourself. “Demanding to be treated”

    Gay people, in a legal civil union, deserve the same economic and financial security and tax advantages you get, you self righteous jag.

  27. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:45 pm

    Where on earth, outside of your imagination, did you come up with the notion that I get “pissed when people are married in court”?

  28. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:47 pm

    Because Holy Matrimony is subject to your Church’s rules, not state law. State law, cannot interfere with religious beliefs. Nobody can take part in Holy Matrimony, that isn’t Catholic.

  29. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:50 pm

    I was asking a question, to try and distinguish what is making you so upset. The fact that word marriage is used outside of the “Holy Context” as in a court, or if you feel that gay people don’t deserve to have the right, to describe their union as marriage, because it offends your moral superiority to them? If it is the latter, then you are a bigot, sorry.

  30. Blake
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

    This legislation destroys the health insurance market (yay!) and, also brings on the long overdue recession/depression politicians, through deficit spending, have been trying to avoid.

    After the collapse of the “health insurance for a hangnail” market, we go back to a fee for service system coupled with a catastrophic health insurance industry.

    All else if folly.

    Going back to a fee for service system brings medical costs back in line with the market.

    Of course, politicians will try to use the collapse of the insurance industry as a trojan horse to bring on single payer. I suspect the economy will move faster than single payer legislation.

  31. Jerry Beckett
    December 18th, 2013 @ 6:58 pm

    You keep poisoning the well by tossing in rather silly barbs like “your moral superiority”.

    No, neither gay nor straight people have the right to change the definition of marriage. A homosexual union is not a marriage: the two institutions are neither alike nor equal.

    You’re ascribing positions to me that I do not hold, and finishing by calling me a ‘bigot’, yet supposedly I’m upset? Brilliant.

    I think you should go insult someone else, and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to tangle with me. I’m done with you.

  32. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 7:20 pm

    That’s fine, be done with me. But I will leave you with this: From Webster’s Dictionary – “a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    Sorry to inform you, but the word marriage is already adopted by the dictionary, as in (2) to indicate same sex unions. Are you going to fight them next?

    The word is not reserved for heterosexual couples, sorry.

  33. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 7:20 pm

    That’s fine, be done with me. But I will leave you with this: From Webster’s Dictionary – “a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    Sorry to inform you, but the word marriage is already adopted by the dictionary, as in (2) to indicate same sex unions. Are you going to fight them next?

    The word is not reserved for heterosexual couples, sorry.

  34. CaptainAmerica
    December 18th, 2013 @ 7:20 pm

    That’s fine, be done with me. But I will leave you with this: From Webster’s Dictionary – “a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    Sorry to inform you, but the word marriage is already adopted by the dictionary, as in (2) to indicate same sex unions. Are you going to fight them next?

    The word is not reserved for heterosexual couples, sorry.

  35. AngelaTC
    December 18th, 2013 @ 8:20 pm

    Eh, I’m a Paul woman through and through, but you’re making the case that Palin was making, in that it’s time for a third party. It has to be part civil libertarian (that’s where the GOP falls down) and part fiscal conservative (ditto the Democrats).

  36. AngelaTC
    December 18th, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

    Agreed. Letting the kiddies stay on Mommy’s plan until age 26 is a brilliant evil. Just about the time they’re going to have to pay their own bills, along will come the Democrats with the new socialized plan to make sure their health care stays “free.”

    But unless the GOP learns to draft an offense PDQ, the plan will totally work

  37. Bob Belvedere
    December 18th, 2013 @ 8:34 pm

    I hope you’re right, but I don’t hold it out these days.

  38. Bob Belvedere
    December 18th, 2013 @ 8:35 pm

    Dana wrote: …How can such a “tax” stand?

    It can only stand in such a nation as we have become, where The Rule Of Law has been replaced by The Rule Of Whim.

  39. K-Bob
    December 19th, 2013 @ 12:21 am

    Congress isn’t going to repair itself. Republicans are drawn to “A GOP Solution” like moths on meth to a gasoline fire. The government is not empowered to tell me how I can get healthcare, nor are they empowered to prevent me from getting it. All they should be doing is prosecuting medical fraud and operating the CDC as part of their national defense duties.

    It’s time for an Article Five Convention. Remove all of the unconstitutional powers the federal government has taken, and let the states decide how to handle Healthcare laws.

    Competition is good.

  40. Lemuel Vargas
    December 19th, 2013 @ 12:59 am

    So you are a libertarian, then…Maybe a purist, too.

  41. gmardre
    December 19th, 2013 @ 1:01 am

    “After ObamaCare” http://t.co/Bm7O06BCXQ

  42. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2013 @ 2:49 am

    Tom Price has a bill that is a pretty good start. Most of this comes from it (and longstanding Republican ideas which have been on the table for decades, despite what the lying clown in the Oval Office says), some of it my own:

    Full portability of health insurance; you never lose it when you change jobs, no requalifying periods or preexisting conditions as long as you keep up the payments.

    High-risk pools for pre-existing conditions with subsidies.

    Interstate markets, like in car insurance instead of limiting pools state by state.

    Tax credits for all up to the average cost of a catastrophic policy with high deductibles and copays.

    Medical Savings Accounts with tax-favored treatment for costs not covered under catastrophic coverage.

    These are mine:

    Equal tax treatment of all insurance – if employer-provided isn’t taxed as income, individual policies should be tax-deductible.

    Mandatory minimum copays for all Medicaid services.

    There are a number of other market-based ideas out there, too, but any combination would be better than third-party or single-payer plans, which insulate policyholders from most costs and provide perverse incentives to waste money.

  43. Adjoran
    December 19th, 2013 @ 2:53 am

    What we had was inefficient and costly, a vestige of the postwar (WWII) wage freeze which wasn’t applied to benefits, when companies began offering health insurance and other benefits packages to get around the wage controls.

    The bigger % of costs individuals pay a part of, the more they help constrain costs. Reform was badly needed, it is just that ObamaCare is “reform” in the exact opposite direction of what would help.

  44. After ObamaCare | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
    December 19th, 2013 @ 7:55 am

    […] After ObamaCare […]

  45. Quartermaster
    December 19th, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

    The history of fallen man gives utterly no hope.

  46. Quartermaster
    December 19th, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

    As long as you pay your own way, and don’t get BigGov to pay the freight for your stupidity, it’s OK with me.

    Alas, BigGov is set up to mulct us to pay for your idiocy. As long as that applies, I’m going to insist on having a say in how you live your life.

  47. Quartermaster
    December 19th, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

    Why?