This week, the New York Times Editorial
Board published an Editorial touting a report from the Congressional Budget
Office estimating 2.5 million people will leave the workforce full-time over
the next decade as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The Editorial rationalizes this estimate as somehow
being a good thing. And, this is where
my hair started to fall out!
The Editorial states, in part:
“[T]hanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.”
Are you kidding me? Thanks to “available subsidies”?!?!? Really? Where do they think these subsidies come from? Who do they think pays for those subsidies? Why, oh why, would anyone think the government is in a position to improve the quality of the healthcare system, or make it more efficient?The Editorial describes the ACA as “liberating” American workers from the burden of having to work for their health insurance. I’m left scratching my head at why seemingly intelligent people are content to turn our country into a socialist society.Somebody, somewhere has to pay for all this “free” health care. And, while the Times Editorial claims 2.5 million workers will leave the labor force by choice, employers are making cuts as a direct impact of the ACA’s regulatory burdens.The President’s centerpiece legislative achievement is crumbling around him, but the New York Times Editorial Board is still serving up the Kool-Aid and telling us what a crowning achievement it is for the American people. In weighing the value of the ACA, I need only to consider how our health care is improved by the expansion of – wait for it – the IRS, and the addition of 16,000 additional agents to carry out enforcement. Remember to turn your head and cough!
The Editorial states, in part:
“[T]hanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.”
Are you kidding me? Thanks to “available subsidies”?!?!? Really? Where do they think these subsidies come from? Who do they think pays for those subsidies? Why, oh why, would anyone think the government is in a position to improve the quality of the healthcare system, or make it more efficient?The Editorial describes the ACA as “liberating” American workers from the burden of having to work for their health insurance. I’m left scratching my head at why seemingly intelligent people are content to turn our country into a socialist society.Somebody, somewhere has to pay for all this “free” health care. And, while the Times Editorial claims 2.5 million workers will leave the labor force by choice, employers are making cuts as a direct impact of the ACA’s regulatory burdens.The President’s centerpiece legislative achievement is crumbling around him, but the New York Times Editorial Board is still serving up the Kool-Aid and telling us what a crowning achievement it is for the American people. In weighing the value of the ACA, I need only to consider how our health care is improved by the expansion of – wait for it – the IRS, and the addition of 16,000 additional agents to carry out enforcement. Remember to turn your head and cough!
3 comments:
A blog titled Left Right in the Middle: A Moderate Perspective on American Government written by Sydney Spencer’s hits the nail on the head when it comes to what most liberal Americans think when it comes to marriage equality. Marriage Equality or lack thereof is a major issue all around the United States these days. The push for the states to recognize marriage between same sex couples has been a constant uphill battle. In her blog Spencer states that, “fifteen times since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause….”
She compares gay marriage to the way America once viewed marriage between blacks and whites, which completely makes sense. Almost 50 years ago Richard and Mildred Loving were banned from the State of Virginia for being married. Richard was white. Mildred was black. This case was taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, thus opening the way for interracial couples in the U.S. to marry legally.
It seems as though more and more states are seeing gay marriage in the same light. Just this week as reported in the Huffington Post Kentucky's Attorney General Jack Conway delivered a moving speech in which he announced that he would not defend Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage in court. Conway stated, "I came to the inescapable conclusion that if I [defended this ban] I would be defending discrimination, that I will not do. As attorney general of Kentucky I must draw the line when it comes to discrimination. The United States Constitution is designed to protect everyone's rights -- both the majority and minority groups." It seems as though the battle for marriage equality may be on a slow winning slope.
DO not mistake this comment for a blanket approval of the ACA, as I agree it has serious flaws, but....
In our previous system, the same issue of where payment comes from also existed. Before, people who had no insurance widely used the emergency room as a doctor's office, many not in a position to pay. I personally racked up about 800 grand in medical expense in 2005. Now, I sure didn't have eight hundred thousand dollars, I had no insurance, but I needed an entire summer in ICU.
Now, doctors and hospitals, under the previous system, still got paid for their time. Hospitals offer payment assistance and even full forgiveness to needy patients. Who paid for all that? Taxpayers. People act as if the ACA or even single-payer systems place this unprecedented onus on taxpayers to cover medical expenses for people, but in reality we have already been practicing a form of this sort of social net for decades.
Although ultimately, I think the passage of the AA as it is now was more about priming the pump for single-payer than anything. The Democrats voted in the bill without reading it because they knew both that the GOP would not be able to shoot it down, as their efforts to weigh it down with riders and addenda didn't kill it in congress. As we have seen the act seems impervious to fifty attempts to defund or abolish it.
After a few years wrangling this boondoggle, I bet the American public has a much more favourable eye on a full single-payer healthcare system. Frankly, I already think state healthcare ould make way more sense than a bill brokered by insurance companies and hornswoggled by GOP legislators until any efficacy it may have had was buried under layers of greed and inefficiency.
Thanks for your comment, CJ. I truly hope.you're wrong about Obamacare being a precursor to a single payer system; which is better described as socialized medicine. Socialized medicine rations care, pure & simple. It drives providers out of the marketplace, discourages research & medical innovation, creates longer waiting times for appointments, reduces the quality of care, & is only remarkable in that it provides everyone access.to the same lousy care. I agree there were major flaws in the system prior to Obamacare's passage, but it is worse now. My family's health care costs have gone up significantly since O-care's enactment. I truly fear a single payer system.
Post a Comment