Posts Tagged ‘obamacare’

By R.C. Seely

DONALD TRUMP SENT OUT A DIGITAL warning to any holdout Republican Senator that if they voted against the Graham-Cassidy healthcare reform bill, they could be branded as “the senator who saved ObamaCare.” He also singled out my first choice for President in the 2016 campaign Rand Paul in the tweet.

At times, I have to give credit to those who act in a manner that I approve, and this is one of those few exceptions that Senator McCain may have done the right thing.

I’m no fan of McCain and ObamaCare should be repealed–but not replaced–and McCain voted no. He voted against bipartisanship, for once, and not with Senator Lindsey Graham but with Senator Rand Paul. Graham even cosponsored the bill and McCain still couldn’t vote for it. His rationale was kind difficult to follow, claiming it’s not enough of a compromise, but kudos for doing the right thing for once. And going against both his friend Senator and his party, a point that Trump hammered him on Twitter. He “voted his conscience” as he replied to the president’s Twitter guilty trips.

Two other Republican Senators join Paul and McCain on Trump’s naughty list, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have also said they would vote no.

Tom Price, Health and Human Services Secretary, told Fox News that this isn’t over yet, and a deal could still be reached before the September 30th deadline. If this plan doesn’t get passed, repeal is not dead anyways, another option by Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Patty Murray of Washington and is also bipartisan.

Senator Paul has always stood behind a “repeal only” stance, Senators Collins and Murkowski are probably holding out because it would defund Planned Parenthood (when did the GOP allow radical feminists in?) and Senator McCain wants everyone to get along. In a statement McCain said he “believe[s] we could better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not really tried.”

Senator Paul seems to be the only one who recognizes the consumer is the one that should make these decisions. The Graham-Cassidy plan would at least put the funding fully in the hands of the state’s but is that enough? Not really, if the government wasn’t subsidizing Healthcare to begin with, the prices of medical care wouldn’t have spiked to begin with.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books about pop culture the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available at Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

THE CBO ESTIMATES THAT TRUMP’S health care bill will leave 24 million without health insurance coverage-this is the regurgitated line by pundits of the American left. And actually it was 52 million all together, the 24 million is an estimate for 2026, by why quibble over it. According to the AARP, the plan “could have raised premiums on Americans between 50 and 64 years old by as much as $8,400 a year.” CNN reports, “opponents say it could reverse the gains in coverage … since the Affordable Care Act.” The most staunchest critics of Trump’s plan, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), were not the Obamacare supporters but the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party activists. “Conservatives complain that the bill does fully repeal Obamacare and that many provisions are far too similar to the health reform law,” according to CNN reports. But the “proponents of the bill say it would save the individual health market from collapse” this bill would not do that actually. It doesn’t open up healthcare free market options and can only be accurately described by the common nomer “Obamacare-lite.” Speculation has surfaced that Trump isn’t pleased with it either and it was pushed by speaker Ryan. For now the bill has been pulled and meaningful healthcare reform has been shelved.

    The AARP referred to the AHCA as an “age tax” and it is, just not to seniors as the organization claims. A tax is a government imposed penalty without necessarily receiving a benefit, that’s not the seniors who are being taxed but the youth. The AARP Public Policy Institute claims that “the AHCA would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times the amount they would charge others for the same coverage.” And? With age, we use more healthcare services, so seniors should be incurring the higher costs since they are using more. Plus, they have had longer to plan and save up for their future financial needs, why should the youth-who have comparatively far more limited income-be taking care of this bill? Most don’t need healthcare until in our forties or fifties and before that there was an inexpensive policy option in place, Catastrophic Coverage, but the Affordable Care Act killed it. Insurance companies aren’t greedy, they simply understand economics and make sensible decisions based on that. The AARP also alludes to collusion between the Trump adminstration and special interest groups, maybe but wasn’t there a special interest group supporting the ACA? Oh right, that was the AARP but that’s different.

    Now onto the other critics. In an email sent out from the Heritage Action for Action PAC:

“The American Health Care Act … was pulled from the house floor because it did not have the votes to pass. This means the house needs to revise the legislature so it reduces premiums, repeals ObamaCare and truly makes life better for the Americans under ObamaCare.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a victory for conservatives.

 

 

The AHCA would have kept Obamacare’s regulatory architecture in place, ensuring premiums remained high. The bill’s defeat was essential-but now the hard work begins.

Conservatives, lead by Rep. Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordon … recognized that the AHCA didn’t repeal the fundamental structure of Obamacare. And rather than giving in to political pressure from leadership and the White House, they stood strong.

So what’s next? It is now clear that the House cannot pass a bill that does not repeal Obamacare’s core regulatory architecture. Congressional leaders and the administration need to go back to the negotiating table.

We now have an opportunity to get [the] Obamacare repeal right, but that only happened because of the conservatives stood their ground and the grassroots America rose up in opposition.”


    So, what’s the solution? Get the federal interlopers out of here! AARP gripes about special interest groups, they should lead the way. There are already free market alternatives, Direct Primary Care for example. Basically, you’re charged a membership and the costs are lower because it’s based on the routine medical care and insurance is used only for major health issues. It treats the individual as an individual rather than part of the masses. Besides lower costs it makes healthcare more modeled towards your specific biological needs. Oh, but you need your “risk pools” there are also Marketshare options in the shared economy. You could give Health Co-op or Liberty Healthshare a consideration. Another option is a Health Saving Account, which are what they sound like, a savings account for medical needs.

    Dr. Ron Paul has talked about his experience as a medical practitioner in the time before federal healthcare as a time of medical excellence and people weren’t worried about being denied services. How could that be? Because doctors had autonomy, they could offer less expensive treatments and at times help the patient pay. With the safety patrol of government medicine and abused litigation, many doctors are afraid to experiment. And they should be. Medical costs are up so high in part because alternatives are outlawed as “unsafe” and many are denied access. Dr. Rand Paul has also presented his alternative to the ACA-all four pages of it-and has made it available for public scrutiny. Unlike Paul Ryan who seems to have developed the same “we have to pass it to know what’s in it” mindset of Nancy Pelosi, the Pauls understand that healthcare is a collection of services and products not a right, therefore for the market to resolve.

    The failure to pass the AHCA has encouraged the supporters of the single-payer system, saying that we should conform to the rest of the world and adopt this model. No, it didn’t get the votes because it didn’t satisfy either side. Neither wants to compromise and Heritage and the Free Caucus are right. What would a grocery store be like if it were run this way? The government said it will pay for a portion of your groceries; but in order to qualify, you can’t buy certain products and you have to go where they tell you. You like Pepsi, well too bad we have a deal with Coke so you have to buy Coke. Oh, and the ones with real sugar, cherry or vanilla are void, and so is the cheaper alternative. You can get diet and organic, though. And you have to buy from the stores we approve, even if it’s not where you want to shop or their competition offers it for less. With free market medicine we get cheaper, better medical technology and services, at the locations of our choosing; with public we get less options, stifling of alternatives through big pharmaceutical alliances, the end of private practitioners and excessive lawsuits in the name of public safety. The plain truth is we ask for more from our local grocery store than medical institutions. The consumer has decided we want choices on the store shelves why not in the operating room? We ask for so much in flavors and gluten-free and less sodium alternatives of corn chips, but are afraid of Health Savings Accounts. Options and innovations make every other part of our lives better, why do so many believe the free market would falter in healthcare? I can’t answer that, in my view healthcare is where we need choices the most. 

    An article in NaturalNews.com discussed this in February 2016:

“Researchers from the Stanford University of Medicine and the National Bureau of Economic Research have uncovered the path towards more affordable healthcare. The path doesn’t consist of … consolidated government insurance plans … healthcare prosperity is less systematic, less consolidated, less controlling and less fear-based. It’s a more open system, with more options that put the patient back in control.

The researchers found out that the answer for more affordable healthcare is simple: Get rid of the government controls and consolidation of physician services and instead create more competition in the marketplace. This doesn’t mean more specialists, more testing and more diagnoses. This excess has occurred because of the loss of competition between individual physicians. 

What used to be several private practices, consisting of one or two independent physicians, has evolved into more complex organizations with more specialized doctors and systems. The competition that used to exist between individual physician practices has … diminished, consolidating care into larger organizations of healthcare providers who can raise the cost because there’s no one in the area to compete with the price. They continue to raise the prices through the years because they know the patients have fewer options and will eventually be herded through their doors anyway.

The larger practices allow doctors to work in groups and exchange information about a patient’s medical history more readily. A bigger staff operating as one can take on a larger volume of patients, but this way begins to treat patients as units on a conveyor belt, as the time per patient dwindles to maximize efficiency within the larger healthcare organization model.

When the costs of all types of doctor visits were averaged, the least competitive markets were found to be the most expensive, averaging 3.5 to 5.4 percent higher in cost. With privately insured individuals spending nearly $250 billion on physician services yearly in the US, this small percentage multiples into tens of billions of dollars.”


    According to a Forbes article, “the time to schedule an appointment has jumped 30% in 15 U.S. metrpolitan areas from 18.5 days in 2014 amid a national doctor shortage fueled by aging baby boomers, population growth and millions of Americans with health insurance.” So the way to fix this is more people insured? Sounds like treating cancer with… more cancer. The argument has become which public healthcare system is better than the other, neither one really. Obamacare, Trumpcare both were set up for social control and not for protecting consumer choice.

     The current healthcare system is sure to fail and the single-payer system isn’t a better option just because everyone else has it. This is a unique country so it shouldn’t be adopting the policies of others, we should do what we do best-innovate. Instead of trying to implement the stale European models let’s figure out something new and different that will satisfy the individual for once. Treat the person like a person and not a number the way they do at the DMV. Stalling the healthcare bill until it has been refined is the best decision the Trump adminstration could have made, the only question is whether or not they have learned from it or repeat it’s mistakes. Will Trump have a healthcare massacre or a close call? In this case blazing the untested trail will lead to promise instead of party cannibalism.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com, ALTV and an author. His latest book is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, is available on Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

“It’s all over but the shouting: Obamacare is working,” states Eugene Robinson, in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post. That’s all I can tell you about the article. Because that’s as far as I got, judging from the title alone “Obamacare ready for a victory lap,” it wouldn’t be too hard to fathom the contents of the piece. Another example of school-girlish worship of Barack Hussein Obama. More God worshipping of Obama, more self congratulations for having done his part for the “Obama-nation” and more “where the hell are those nasty Republicans in all this” style of rancor. Okay, we get it – enough already! This is no longer beating the dead horse, but beating it to a throw rug.
Besides writing something that is nothing but tooting his own horn – which makes it boring – it’s also wrong. It’s very assumption is wrong. Obamacare is not working, it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, so stating unequivocally that it is currently working is beyond inaccurate. That’s like building a city in the middle of nowhere, it could thrive but you’re operating on blind faith. Is that really how we want our government to operate, on blind faith? We should be asking more, as is, we ask for more from our cell phone than from our federal government. Instead of “asking can you hear me now,” we should be demanding “you will hear me now.”
Instead of stating that Obamacare is working he should be stating that it will work, but will it? Very doubtful, seeing as when other countries tried it the end results was chaos in their healthcare system. Right now we simply are not at a point where we can measure the success of the law, except for the problems. Six million – and counting – kicked off their insurance, unprecedented spending and unprecedented power. The “success” of the law is based on an unsubstantiated eight million enrollment number, that administration doesn’t won’t explored. There are speculations about the source of those numbers, including adding Medicare and Medicaid to the Obamacare enrollees tally sheets. Such claims are admittedly highly speculative, but not less so than a pundit claiming a law a success before it’s full implementation. Check back with Eugene at the end of the year and see if he stills thinks it a success or if it’s simply that tingling he gets from Obama. To sum it up, Eugene Robinson is jumping for joy, on the optimistic premise – that in the end the venture will wind up an unprecedented success for the unprecedented president.

Did you like this article? Get UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior Modification for the Modern Age by this author. Also check out his other books all available at Barnes and Noble.com and Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

As I’ve mentioned previously one of my favorite and most poignant authors is the late George Orwell, his book was the major influence for my book ‘We the Rodents’ and he (amongst other famous writers, like, Kafka and Voltaire) has had influences on both the Americanus Libertae and my new initiative UnConventional Wisdom. It appears that I’m not alone in my respect and appreciation for the works of Orwell, with President Obama showing a certain amount of knowledge in his manner of legislating. The major difference is that the president seems determined to test the theories of Orwell, where I see them as a dire warning.
His vision appears to be to bring the nightmarish world of 1984 to reality, not only with the invasions of the peoples’ privacy, but implementing the principles of Newspeak – the active role by government to destroy the meaning of words. As one MSNBC reporter had intimated on her show the alias for the president’s main law ObamaCare should be considered equal to the more common derogatory term to the president’s ethnic race. Making this another example of the absurd assertion that anyone who even questions the administration’s ideology must be a racist – that has become the most lazy and dishonest argument by the Obama-media.
That is old news though, there’s a new and more insidious line of propaganda in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but to see it more clearly we have to go back to the beginning of the “Obama-nation.” During his first presidential campaign, then candidate Barack Obama said “if you like doctor you can keep your doctor, no one is trying to take your doctor away from you,” the fine print in his 2,000 plus page signature bill that he didn’t tell you, that this is only if they stay in the field. With the problems of reimbursement and guaranteed increases in costs on their patients, many doctors have left their fields. In a few cases it’s been entire hospitals, including the best in the nation such as, Cedar Sinai and Sloane Kettering. He also promised that costs would go down and that you could keep your insurance, also not true, almost six million people have lost their individual insurance policies due to the regulations in the Affordable Care Act. The costs of the new replacement policies have been, in many cases substantially higher, but if you pay higher that translate to better coverage right? That’s the intimation of Ezekiel Emanuel and architect of the ACA said “if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor you can do that….you pay more for certain – for a wider range of choices or a wider range of benefits.” This is a rare moment of honest from the administration; sadly even this isn’t completely true. In some states this is the case, but in most it’s not – even if you pay more you still will likely get shafted under the new health care law.
This is another example of an Obamaian Slip; this is the opposite of a Freudian slip, where an involuntary truth slips out, but instead an involuntary lie. More Obamaian Slips were the major selling points for signing the law: That it would help seniors, that he initiated keeping youth on their parents plan until age 26 and that it would benefit those with prediagnosed conditions.
First off, to help seniors, the system has to have a high enrollment rate by the twenty – thirty year old demographic. So let me see if I understand this, it’s considered moral for the elderly – who should have been saving throughout their lives – to have their healthcare needs subsidized by the youth, who don’t even have any money yet? Morally or practically, that sounds like trying to blood from a stone. Along with those arguments there’s a biggest flaw that wasn’t considered – what if the youth don’t enroll? Which is what has occurred and this disenfranchisement started with the HealthCare.gov website.     The site had a “disappointing” rollout that was it’s downfall for the tech-savvy youth, think of it like this – you voted for the most new age president, who ran the most proficient and effective social media marketing campaign in history and the webpage for his trademark legislature doesn’t work… this does not compute! The speculation by its proponents is that it was intentional to avoid the backlash from new enrollees having to pay far for their policies, so to stall they built a slow and inefficient webpage – intentional or legitimate incompetence, is immaterial, either way the error has what could be irreparable harm on the healthcare plan. The youth, who were Obama’s strongest supporters, have now his harshest critics and it will be the seniors who will be paying the price for it.
So will the president take responsibility for this, and if not who will take the heat? Since he hasn’t accepted responsibility for anything else under his watch, it’s doubtful he’ll start here. As for the promise to keep children on their parents plan until 26, not Obama’s idea, there were already insurance companies that offered that benefit – stop being lazy and shop around.
For those with prediagnosed conditions – they have the real potential to suffer along with the seniors, not only because specialty physicians will be leaving en mass so the quality of care will be greatly diminished, but under socialized medicine will bring about a lack resources. With prices of medicine devices dropped, those with the money will purchase and stockpile them, so others won’t have access to the, if the long lines to see a doctor don’t kill them first! In Canada, there are lotteries to see who gets to see a doctor! These problems are far from speculation and have been witnessed by pretty much every country that have adopted socialized medicine, with many doctors saying they simply can’t operate if they’re beholden to these restrictions.
What is the driving force for all this healthcare madness? It’s another symptom of the entitlement culture – you’re working in a field that is based on humanitarian intentions, so it’s immoral to be paid for it. Why? Doctors have families; they have bills; they have made immense sacrifices to their trade and yet, that’s still not enough. The Affordable Care Act is a bad law, that’s why it barely passed into law and half the country was against it then, with its numbers growing. It hasn’t even been implemented and it’s already harming the economy and many individuals have lost their insurance, this doesn’t even include the people who will lose their employer provided coverage, which experts predict could be as high as one hundred million people… clearly the worst, is yet to come! That’s why when the celebrities push for you to “get covered,” I say opt out and “Stay Naked.”
If you have any Affordable Care Act horror stories you want to share post them using #StayNaked, on twitter or facebook.