| ObamaCare: Not What Waxman Was Wishing For |
President
Obama’s signature piece of legislation, one which passed with a great deal of
support from Congressman Henry Waxman, is the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, more pointedly referred to as “ObamaCare”. The law has remained as
unpopular as ever with the American people.
Rasmussen
Reports has just published that now 56% of voters want the Health Care law
repealed. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law)
62% of
respondents believe that employers are going to drop offering health coverage
for their employees (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2012/62_think_health_law_likely_to_cause_some_companies_to_drop_employee_coverage)
69 % think that
market forces as opposed to government regulations would bring down costs and
increase access. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2011/69_think_competition_between_health_insurers_better_for_consumers_than_more_government_regulation)
The legal name
for ObamaCare has been lopped down to “Affordable Care Act”, presumably because
the higher premiums and diminished access resulting from the legislation has
signaled to growing number of voters that the law is not protecting them from
the high regulations and diminishing quality of health coverage in this
country.
Instead of
“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, it should be called “Protecting
Patients from Affordable Care” Act, and Congressman Henry Waxman played a
central role in its passage.
The number who
favor repeal has gotten higher, not lower. Why is that the case?
First of all,
ObamaCare is a T-A-X, yet Congressman Waxman, in a July 1 interview with CNN,
refused to acknowledge the core element of the ruling which upheld ObamaCare.
“It’s a mandate enforced by a tax” was the best Waxman would offer. His
double-dealing on the issue is patently unacceptable.
Congressman
Waxman claimed that the signature legislation which he helped cram through
Congress would increase access for all Americans. Yet ObamaCare is crippling
hospitals which cannot come to grips with the increased demand on their beds
and halls that will not be defrayed by ObamaCare.
A recent report
points out that hospitals nationwide, which are required by law to care for any
patients who enter the hospital, will have to eat the costs for the growing
number of illegal immigrants seeking care. Furthermore, illegal immigrants are
not eligible for Medicaid.
These
individuals cannot purchase their own insurance, yet they cannot be tracked
down by the IRS to pay the mandate-fee-tax.
Already 61
hospitals have closed in California between 1998 and 2007.(http://projects.latimes.com/hospitals/emergency-rooms/no/closed/list/)
“California
Health Online” predicted that there will be more closures because of hospitals’
growing dependence on government support, which includes ObamaCare (http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2012/2/9/2012-forecast-for-calif-hospitals-predicts-fiscal-problems-closures.aspx)
Since 2002, 40
hospitals have closed in California, many of which rely on Medicare for
reimbursement, yet ObamaCare cut Medicare by $500 billion dollars. (http://craiggarner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Californias-Vanishing-Hospitals.pdf)
In response to
the passage of ObamaCare, three hospitals closed in Pennsylvania because of the
static population with high demand for care, yet the hospitals will not receive
the necessary reimbursement because of ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare. (http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/17/the-growing-list-of-obamacares-casualties-first-hospitals-then-politicians/)
Worse yet, ObamaCare
did not take care of a greater source of financial strain on our hospitals: the
malpractice suits which eat away at their revenues and resources (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/nyregion/some-hospitals-in-new-york-lack-a-malpractice-safety-net.html?_r=1&hp) As hospitals forgo insuring themselves
just to provide basic care for patients, they will more likely facing a growing
tide of lawsuits from patients who receive federal subsidies . Hospitals need
protection, too.
Recently the New
York Times reported that another loophole or unconsidered interpretation will
price out the very people who were intended to benefit from the mandate-tax:
Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families
would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet
they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.
Who issued this decision? The IRS, which focused
on the fact that employer’s coverage is conferred primarily on the employee
alone. Because the employees qualify for self-coverage through their employer,
they will not be able to receive a federal subsidy for the rest of their
families. As much as Congressman Waxman has protested this ruling, small
businesses and administrative officials now face a delicate dilemma. If
government officials read the ObamaCare legislation broadly, it will be an ever
greater strain than predicted on the federal government. If they abide by the
narrow interpretation provided by the IRS, the increasing cost of health
insurance will land back on the taxpayer, negating any intended benefits.
The vagaries of ObamaCare have created more
problems instead of solving them. Working men and women will still be forced to
pay higher premiums in order to cover their entire family, yet the burden will
not qualify them to receive the subsidies from the state (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/ambiguity-in-health-law-could-make-family-coverage-too-costly.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=health)
Congressman Henry Waxman was one of the chief
architects of ObamaCare, and he has asserted that he opposes any repeal of this
legislation.
Yet what are the growing legacies of this law?
By confirmation of the Supreme Court, Waxman has inadvertently championed a
huge tax increase, not a mandate or a fee. Small businesses are threatened with
crippling taxes if they do not provide coverage. Hospitals are closing because
they have to provide care with diminished reimbursements from the government
The 2,000 page
law is refuted for these three reasons: high tax, higher premiums, less access.
These three
reasons are enough to send Waxman out of office and repeal Obama-WaxmanCare.
No comments:
Post a Comment