Obamacare Ruling Right Around the Corner

As all Americans know, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling shortly on the National Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

In reseaching stories for this post, I came upon several articles which were nothing but Liberal propaganda, including this little bit of pessimism from the New York Daily News:

Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law as the “decision of the century.” But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America’s tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

———

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court’s endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he’s re-elected.

The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama’s law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.

———

Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law?

A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest.

Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste, and millions uninsured.

Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law.

But the major GOP alternatives to Obama’s law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it’s unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama’s public-private approach fails.

It seems to me that the Daily News is ignoring the world around them.  Government Healthcare has been in place for years in countries such as Canada and Great Britain, and things are not as idyllic as Liberal writers would lead you to believe.

Back on June 7, 2010, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann wrote:

The leading Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reports that “critics say that the clinics are taking physicians away from the public system making it even harder…to find a family doctor.” David Eggen, executive director of a group that supports the Canadian socialized system, Friends of Medicare, said that it’s already hard to find a family physician in Canada and that clinics like these, springing up in several Canadian cities, could make it even harder.

It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.

But it is illegal to make patients “have to pay a fee to gain access to health services” that are provided free by the government system. So patients and doctors are forming membership-only groups to avoid the legal penalties that could potential stop them from getting or giving the care that they need.

This is where the United States is headed. Socialism dries up the supply of medical care and forces ever stricter rationing of the available resources. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Eventually socialism runs out of other peoples’ money.”

With the full implementation of Obamacare and its likely cuts in physician reimbursement, more and more doctors will choose to opt out of Medicare and charge their patients for their care. The elderly who need specialized care will have no choice but to take out insurance, not to fill gaps in Medicare coverage, but to overlay the system with private coverage so they can get the care Medicare now provides to all seniors. If you want to see a family doctor, it will be rough unless you are paying for the care privately. And to see a specialist, at the low reimbursement rates afforded by the program in the future, will be well nigh impossible.

Medical care for the elderly will become like public housing or public education in the inner city. Those who can afford to go elsewhere will. Those who can’t will be left to fend for themselves in overcrowded public facilities that will be, at least, free.

And then, as in Canada, liberal critics will rail, not against the system that dried up the resources in the first place or against the socialist rules that drove doctors out of medicine, but against the private clinics for resources from the public sector.

As someone who has worked in the Medical Industry, both in a Hospital System and in the Insurance Field, I have often wondered what Obama and the Dems’ purpose was in trying to destroy the greatest Healthcare System in the world.

My only conclusion is, that they despise American Exceptionalism, and they want our Healthcare System to be just as lousy as the other state-run ones.

They don’t care, as long as they, the Politboro, have life and death power over us, the unwashed Proletariat.

If SCOTUS does not strike down this unabashed, unconstitutional, government overreach, I would advise you to start picking out an ice floe to put Grandma on.

About these ads

Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to “Obamacare Ruling Right Around the Corner”

  1. johnnyalamo Says:

    The reason they want healthcare is control. The true goal is a nationalized system. Obamacare starts with insurance, but its real goal is to cause a disaster and collapse the system. Some polls show as high as 80% of doctors would quit their practices. That paves the way for the real goal, Nationalization of the entire health sector. With public sector unions on the decline after Wisconsin, think of the power the democrats could wield if they control 1/6 of the economy and turned all those nurses and lab techs into “good union people”. Our collapse as a republic would be complete.

  2. Nel Says:

    Or you rightys could just move to an industrialized country that doesn’t provide health insurance to all it’s citizens….Oh wait,I forgot,there AREN’T any…

  3. INC Says:

    kj, I don’t know if you saw this, but I found the transcript yesterday of Romney’s interview on Face the Nation. Mitt had this to say:

    But states have, under their constitution, the– the right to require people to either go to school or get auto insurance or in this case, to get health insurance.

    He doesn’t get it, or else he gets it and still thinks he’s right or doesn’t want to admit RomneyCare is a bust.

  4. Finley Says:

    Insurance is not the answer. Medical costs started skyrocketing when insurance started covering everything and when Our Glorious Judaical System Mandated that every hospital MUST treat anyone regardless of coverage. Look at the teeth of Europeans and look at ours. Dental hasn’t gone up like medical because it is not MANDATORY to get treatment. The free market was allowed to work and people are willing to pay for straight teeth. Competition keeps costs down. Look at cosmetic surgery, Laser Eye Surgery, etc…. Their are plenty of opportunities for all if the Market is allowed to work.

    That also means that people will have to take responsibility for their own HEALTH!!

    That is the issue no one is willing to face.

    That is my opinion and with that- and 75 cents- you can buy a Coke!

  5. Gohawgs Says:

    johnnyalamo is correct. The dems want CONTROL, over anything and everything…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,577 other followers

%d bloggers like this: