Westminster
Current Weather
- Today
- 68°
- Local every day in
Delegate Justin Ready, R-Carroll County, weighs in on Obamacare and the Supreme Court's recent decision.
The following letter was submitted by Delegate Justin Ready:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) surprised many. The reasoning given by the court for allowing the mandate is that it is a tax and that it’s constitutional for Congress to pass a tax. While I believe that is a questionable interpretation at best, Americans now must buy health insurance or receive a tax penalty. In 2008, President Obama said “Health care should never be purchased with tax increases on Middle class families”. During the lengthy debate on ACA he stressed that it was not a tax. It seems that President Obama’s promises usually have an expiration date. For example, he promised that negotiations for ACA would be on C-SPAN for the whole nation to see. They were instead held mostly behind closed doors.
This tax will fall very heavily on middle class families who are not eligible for government help but do not have a lot of disposable income to purchase health insurance. Businesses of all sizes will be caught in the crossfire as well, although there is a temporary exemption for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The other major problem is that Obamacare tries to deal with the high cost of health insurance but does little in a practical sense to lower the cost of care.
However, though I oppose Obamacare, I think that most people agree that our health care system is in need of reform. We have the best quality of care in the world. Unfortunately, because of excessive regulation, duplication of care, an overly litigious society, and arcane rules about where you can buy a policy from, the cost of health care continues to skyrocket. I firmly believe that what’s needed (and what the Obama administration and Congress should have done) is take the problems in our health care system we can agree on and addressed them one by one. Health care reform should consist of perhaps 8-10 bills that each deal with one segment of the problem. That would allow for robust debate and even some compromise in the full light of day.
Some may ask “Well, isn’t there some good policy in the ACA?” The presence of a few good details – such as an emphasis on digitalizing medical records and addressing the problem of pre-existing conditions – doesn’t outweigh the overall, one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with our nation’s health care. The biggest problem with the ACA is it puts the government in charge of health decisions. It does not address the high cost of care or promote a check on the insurance companies. What is needed is more choice for consumers with less mandates and more competition.
John Culleton
3:03 pm on Saturday, July 7, 2012
One of the features of the ACA that will soon be implemented is the requirement that insurers spend 80% of their premium dollars in services, and cover overhead, advertising and profit from the remaining 20%.. As a result, some of the insured will get a rebate from their insurance company in August.
Medicare runs at a much lower overhead cost, more like 5%. So the major failing
of the ACA is the lack of a public option, Medicare you can buy with a premium no matter what your age.
Meanwhile, countries like Germany and Canada provide excellent care at half the per person cost as that incurred in the USA. Some call it socialized medicine. but it is more cost-efficient than our current hodgepodge of multiple vendors and multiple programs. In those countries the people live longer and infant mortality is lower. You could look it up.
John Culleton
John Culleton
John Culleton
Buck Harmon
4:53 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
Social experiments such as Obamacare wreak of socialism...no question about it.
David J Iacono
5:36 pm on Saturday, July 7, 2012
The fact is that the more people who participate in health care, the lower the cost of premiums because everyone shares the risk. The freeloaders who don't purchase health insurance and use the emergency room for their health care costs all of us who do have health insurance higher premiums. That, in effect, is a tax on all the responsible people who purchase health insurance. Even the Heritage Foundation, in their plan, found it acceptable to assess a penalty on those who refuse to pay for their own health insurance. Candidate Romney did the same in Mass. Of course Republicans always call these fees, not taxes. Remember Bob Erlhich and all the fees he raised? From now on, let's call it Obamneycare. I agree with Governor Jindal on that one.
Buck Harmon
4:49 pm on Sunday, July 8, 2012
Please explain where literally thousands of primary care doctors will come from...
The education alone will take 10 years....massive chaos related to being seen in a timely fashion will be among the first of many expensive problems that will need to be dealt with.
Nothing more than a very expensive social experiment that is putting the cart before the horse....typical of current leadership.