Problematic Obamacare unfair to young people, married couples

The following opinion column is part of a student discussion on the recent government shutdown.

 

Much has been made of the current government shutdown. The root of this problem isn’t lack of bipartisanship, it’s the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, which hurts young people and damages the market.

Obamacare forces young people to pay more for health insurance in order to pay for older people’s health insurance, which is costlier than ours. It also forbids health insurance companies from denying people coverage because of pre-existing conditions. A health insurance company refusing to cover someone because of a pre-existing condition may sound callous, but that’s how the insurance market works.

Just as no company would provide someone with insurance for his house the day after it burned down, no health insurance company has any interest in insuring people who have pre-existing conditions. It would be one thing if the government came up with a plan to start subsidizing high-risk pools where those with pre-existing conditions could obtain insurance, but the government instead chose to force everyone into the market.

Many of the plans in the state health insurance marketplace – the exchange – will cover abortion. Anyone who selects a plan with abortion coverage will pay a second fee every month on top of his or her premium just for abortion coverage. People can’t opt out of the coverage unless they switch to a plan that doesn’t include abortions. And you may not know your plan covers it until the very last minute, when it’s too late to opt out.

It’s apparently not enough to feed Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion chain, $542 million in taxpayer money per year. The federal government has chosen Planned Parenthood to be a “Navigator” for Obamacare, which will mean that in addition raking in money from its “Navigator” grant, the abortion giant will be trying to convince its customers to sign up for Obamacare. Even more alarmingly, thanks to Obamacare, a portion of your taxes will subsidize people who choose abortion in their new federally subsidized health care plans. The abortion industry is already licking its greedy chops.

Another disturbing portion of Obamacare is its peculiar unfairness toward married couples. Obamacare counts a married dual-income couple as having one income, whereas it counts an unmarried, cohabiting, dual-income couple as having two separate incomes. This means cohabiting couples will be treated as having lower incomes, thus granting them higher health care subsidies. So, if two couples make the same amount of money but one couple is cohabitating and the other couple is married, the married couple will suffer financially under Obamacare. Obamacare’s unnecessary “wedding tax” penalizes married couples every year of their marriage, too. Why get married, anyway?

Companies like Subway and Wendy’s are cutting employee hours to fewer than 30 hours a week so they don’t have to comply with the Obamacare mandate to provide their employees with expensive health insurance.

It’s easy to ridicule conservatives for talking about Obamacare “death panels,” but health care rationing is real and coming soon to a hospital near you. Obamacare’s independent payment advisory boards allow a panel of strangers to decide how much money a person can spend on health care. It doesn’t matter if that person can pay for it all out of pocket, he or she simply won’t be allowed to.

Obamacare is bad news for our generation.

Claire Chretien is a junior majoring in public relations and American studies. Her column runs biweekly on Tuesdays.

 

  • Nolan Bush

    “It doesn’t matter if that person can pay for it all out of pocket, he or she simply won’t be allowed to.”

    Where exactly in the Affordable Care Act did you find this information? All of these allegations are pretty serious. It’d be great if you could cite a source and back them up!

    • Dropping_Facts

      “Where exactly in the Affordable Care Act did you find this
      information? All of these allegations are pretty serious. It’d be great
      if you could cite a source and back them up!”

      You can pay out of pocket for health care BUT you still must purchase insurance even if you dont need it. If you refuse to buy insurance, you will be fined.

      • Nolan Bush

        I understand that, but Ms. Chretien is insinuating in a very misleading manner, that there is some board that would prevent you from receiving care if you chose to pay out of pocket. The “panels” she refers to are intended to identify and encourage the most cost effective procedures and practices, not to ration care.

      • Paddy O’Waggle

        Under what circumstances would a person not need health insurance? Is it possible to be a perfectly safe person who never gets sick or injured, never needs any kind of physical exam or check-up or vaccination or any other kind of routine maintenance, doesn’t have any prescriptions, has perfect vision and teeth, and who therefore never requires access to health care of any kind? What’s your secret?

        • Dropping_Facts

          Im speechless…Please tell me that you dont have a college degree from Alabama…

          Do you seriously not get the point of insurance? Insurance is not meant to be a payment plan for health. Unfortunately with employer provided insurance, costs have shot through the roof. Obamacare only confounded this problem.

          “Under what circumstances would a person not need health insurance?”

          You do realize that people can pay out of pocket for health services. It is actually much cheaper to do this than to have an all encompassing health “insurance.” Insurance is meant to be a hedge against unforseen catastrophe. Very wealthy people simply do not need insurance. It is not hard to figure that out. Those people can absorb health costs without it bankrupting them.

          I obviously dont advocate a person who isnt wealthy not having insurance. If sudden catastrophic injury or illness hits you, you need to have insurance for that purpose.

          What is the problem with Obamacare? Its a ponzi scheme. Young people in a real, free market system would be less likely to develop illness and injury than older people. Unfortunately, young people are now carrying the load for an older generation. Not only have they saddled our generation with mountains of debt to buy votes during their time, they have now saddled us with their health care costs.

          I get it now. You liberals sincerely just have no clue. We dont have money to pay for Obamacare and yall want single payer. THERE IS NO MONEY. 16 TRILLION in the hole and we keep borrowing and spending(real number is around 87 trillion if you count unfunded liabilities). What happens when the gravy train ends? Who is John Galt?

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “You do realize that people can pay out of pocket for health services. It is actually much cheaper to do this than to have an all encompassing health “insurance.”"

            No, they can’t. No, it isn’t. My wife and I delivered our son at Northport DCH. She needed an emergency c-section and our son had to spend time in the NICU. The bill was over $70,000. Our insurance, which costs us $4,200 per year, covered it all, after they used the bargaining power they have as a huge insurance company to negotiate it down from around $90,000. If you can afford to pay $70,000 out of pocket, my hat’s off to you. If you think that you’d be financially better off that way, you’re the one who needs to return his degree.

            “I obviously dont advocate a person who isnt wealthy not having insurance. If sudden catastrophic injury or illness hits you, you need to have insurance for that purpose.”

            That’s what Obamacare says. It says, you need to get health insurance, which it incentivizes with a tax penalty (which also helps to pay for this person’s health care if he needs it). Then it sets up a marketplace for them to buy it, and if they really aren’t wealthy, it helps them afford it with subsidies. It also requires that wealthy people carry health insurance, but the fact that you think health care is cheaper without insurance just shows that you don’t understand anything about the health care industry or how health insurance works.

            “Who is John Galt?”

            If you want to go Galt, be my guest. I encourage it. But good luck finding someplace with a first-world economy, a well-functioning infrastructure, and a democratically-elected government that doesn’t also have a single-payer, government-run health insurance system.

          • Dropping_Facts

            “No, they can’t. No, it isn’t.”

            I feel sorry for society that you had kids. You admit that you can actually pay for health services on your own right after you say this. I just dont know what else to say. If you cant even be honest with yourself, its not worth responding to anything else you write

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “I feel sorry for society that you had kids.”

            What a nice thing to say. That just shows that your heart is in the right place.

            “You admit that you can actually pay for health services on your own right after you say this.”

            I do?

            “I just dont know what else to say.”

            That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Dropping_Facts

            You say: “No, they can’t. No, it isn’t”

            Then you say: ” If you can afford to pay $70,000 out of pocket, my hat’s off to you. If
            you think that you’d be financially better off that way, you’re the one
            who needs to return his degree.”

            Again, im speechless.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            Do you think that “If you can afford to pay $70,000 out of pocket, my hat’s off to you,” means that I can afford to pay $70,000 out of pocket? It doesn’t. It means that I can’t, but good for you if you can.

            I have no idea how, but maybe you think it’s this (I have literally no idea why you included it): “If you think that you’d be financially better off that way, you’re the one who needs to return his degree.” This doesn’t mean that I can afford to pay $70,000 out of pocket, either. It’s a reference to the fact that $4,200 is less than $70,000, and so someone who had to pay $4,200 would be financially better off than if he’d had to pay $70,000, and so however wealthy the person might be, he’d be financially better off if he had insurance.

          • Dropping_Facts

            You said “No you cant,”

            THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT. YOU CAN PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “You said “No you cant,” THAT IS A FALSE STATEMENT. YOU CAN PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.”

            When I said that, I was responding to your remark that “You do realize that people can pay out of pocket for health services.” *Services,* not insurance. Most people can afford to pay out of pocket for insurance, and cannot afford to pay out of pocket for health care services. This is why most people carry health insurance. It makes much more financial sense.

            Of course, there are 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance. Most of these people are poor, or aren’t offered insurance through their employer, or have pre-existing conditions (or all of these). This is the problem Obamacare is designed to deal with. Obamacare provides a marketplace (that didn’t previously exist) for people like that to shop for insurance, and provides subsidies to help them afford it. Your repeated insistence that these people can afford health care/insurance out of pocket is obtuse and wrong.

            “WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??”

            The reason I don’t agree with you is that I know what I am talking about enough to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Dropping_Facts

            I actually meant to say health services. That is what I was talking about. I can go pay for a doctor visit without insurance.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “I can go pay for a doctor visit without insurance.”

            If it works, I guess it’s a good plan. But, out of curiosity, what do you do when the doctor advises you to get an MRI, or have surgery, or get chemotherapy, or something like that? Do you have the kind of cash it would take to pay for that stuff on hand? What percentage of Americans do you think can pay a $70,000 medical bill out of pocket?

            And what do you propose to do about the 47 million Americans who aren’t as fortunate as you, and don’t have access to an employer-provided insurance plan or have been frozen out of the insurance market by a pre-existing condition? These are people you’ve already said ought to have insurance. What’s your plan?

          • Concerned “Christian”

            You might be able to pay for a “visit” but the average person cannot pay for much more than that. If you have any type of ongoing medical need, a serious issue that requires hospitalization, etc, it will be very unlikely that the average person could afford this without health insurance. Just because you may be born with a silver spoon in your mouth does not mean others are. Your privileged position in society does not allow you the ability to see what those lower on that privilege pyramid deal with day in and day out. It is unfortunate that you are so selfish and uncaring about society, in general, that you must constantly only consider yourself.

  • MAB

    The ACA is pretty bad in terms of coverage and protecting Americans, but I don’t know if anything in this article is actually correct.

  • XLNB

    This could quite possibly be one of the most ill-informed opinions I’ve seen on the CW. Nevermind the government shutdown has been caused by a small-extreme wing of the Republican party throwing a tantrum, the govt. shutdown, at every stage, never had the possibility of defunding Obamacare.

    If anything, the foolhardiness of conservatives’ zeal blocked any large news coverage of ACA’s websites having issues staying online. It’s the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

    The writer also clearly speaks from a vantage point of extreme financial privilege, and ignorance by stating insurance companies shouldn’t cover individuals with pre-existing conditions.

    This opinion jumps on a full throttle case of ignorance, privilege, partisanship, and misinformation.

  • Eric Cooks

    Ever heard of social security? Pretty sure that is deducted out of every working persons check.

  • Sean

    On your very first point about the elderly, if that’s even remotely true, then it’s part of a long game. I pay taxes for Medicare and Social Security, things I don’t get to see yet. Eventually, though, I should be able to use them. At which point other people are paying for it. Not to mention, if we only ever paid taxes for things we personally used, there’d be no country worth speaking of.

    The ACA has a lot of problems, sure. America’s politicians don’t seem to like the idea of single-payer, entirely sensible healthcare reform. However, it does good, especially for young people that find themselves wanting healthcare but unable to get a job that gives benefits because even BEFORE Obamacare, the majority of jobs being created were part time, a la 2008 (if I remember correctly).

    The rest of this article sounds pretty out there and potentially very much untrue. Needs some sources.

    • Dropping_Facts

      “Eventually, though, I should be able to use them.”

      Interesting that you didnt use the word will instead of should.

      “America’s politicians don’t seem to like the idea of single-payer, entirely sensible healthcare reform.”

      Wrong. Most of them(save libertarians and tea party republicans) would love that kind of power. Its taxpaying Americans that dont want it. Obama used the IRS to punish his enemies. Just think what people like that would do if they had control of everyone’s health care. Also, who is going to pay for single payer? It would only speed up the eventual collapse which is what Britian, Greece, Spain, etc are dealing with.

      If another currency takes the place of the dollar in the trading of oil, the swhtf.

      • Sean

        Of course I said “should.” For a couple of reasons. One, it could go bankrupt. Two, I could die young.

        And if you think Tea Party Republicans don’t revel in having power, you’ve clearly not paid attention to this shutdown. And is Canada having a meltdown? Not that I’ve heard. Yet they manage to have single-payer healthcare. Crazy, right?

        • Dropping_Facts

          “And if you think Tea Party Republicans don’t revel in having power, you’ve clearly not paid attention to this shutdown.”

          Clearly Tea Party GOPers advocating for LESS govt control means that they want more power.

          Crazy to people without a clue. You liberals can pull this crap with most people because most people dont give a rip about staying informed. They care more about what American Idol is going to do that night.

          Canada has a debt to GDP ratio of is 34%. The US debt to GDP ratio is 73%(twice what it was under Bush) without single payer. Canada has much different demographics than the United States. They also dont have 315 million people. I dont know where yall figure all this money is coming from. Oh thats right Obama’s money stash!!!

          • Sean

            They’re advocating for THEM to control the government. If they didn’t enjoy being the ones with power, then why aren’t they attempting to curtail Congressional powers and money? Because that’s theirs. And the fact that the Tea Party has a massively intrusive social agenda tells me less government isn’t even remotely close to what they want.

            Yeah, and healthcare changes couldn’t possibly affect that. Or attempts to solve poverty, something politicians also abhor doing. Could it be that this issue is multi-faceted? Nooo…

          • Dropping_Facts

            Nice attempt at spin and changing subjects but you are still wrong.

          • Sean

            Right. Spin. It’s spin for me to point out all the major Tea Party members of Congress and look at their support for massively invasive and regulatory government when it comes to social (and in their opinion moral) issues and say, “Well, that doesn’t sound like small government at all!”

            Canada has a single-payer healthcare system and a healthier economy than ours. With our money and resources, we should be doing better than Canada. And could do better than Canada, with their healthcare system. The American healthcare system is a morally bankrupt machine designed to suck every last penny out of the sick and infirm and hand it to HMOs and corporations in the medicine and “health care” businesses. But that’s the free market, so who cares, right? All regulations are bad. Boo government.

          • Dropping_Facts

            “It’s spin for me to point out all the major Tea Party members of
            Congress and look at their support for massively invasive and regulatory
            government when it comes to social”

            You are lying or ignorant. Plain and simple. Ill wait while you actually try to find real tea party GOPers that support massively invasive and regulatory govt on social issues.

            “But that’s the free market, so who cares, right? All regulations are bad. Boo government.”

            Its not a free market system. I could try to explain this to you but youd lack the intellectual capacity to understand it.

          • Sean

            Michele Bachmann is the chair of the Tea Party Caucus in the House. Do I really need to point out her views on immigration, abortion and homosexuality? But of course, you’ll just say she’s not a “real” Tea Partier. Because the “real” and “true” ones would never do something like that. I’ll give you a hint, though: Pretty much none of the people claiming to be Republican or conservative up in Washington today is a “real” conservative, a classic Republican. They’re greedy, self-interested tools that support an invasive social and moral agenda and favor economic frivolity that matches their personal gains. Neoconservatism isn’t even close to conservatism.

            And you’re right. I lack the intellectual capacity to understand your lies, falsehoods and incoherent rantings as though they were truth. My brain isn’t damaged enough for that. Tell me, why do you support the health care system in America without Obamacare? And do you support the truly free market with no government oversight?

          • Dropping_Facts

            “I’ll give you a hint, though: Pretty much none of the people claiming to
            be Republican or conservative up in Washington today is a “real”
            conservative, a classic Republican. They’re greedy, self-interested
            tools that support an invasive social and moral agenda and favor
            economic frivolity that matches their personal gains. Neoconservatism
            isn’t even close to conservatism.”

            Thats rich. I bet you think this is some kind of revelation to me. I understand completely that most establishment GOPers are statist and corporatists. What’s rich is that you dont share the same disgust with dems who are just as bad or worse.

            How exactly do you judge a politician? The answer is how they deliver on the promises that they campaigned on. Cruz, Paul, Lee, Bachman and other tea partiers actually were honest with their constituents. They are doing just what their constituents sent them to Washington to do yet you still lump them in with the other statist blowhards like John “Boner:”, McConnell, McCain, Graham, etc.

            You worship your savior Obama, yet he is the most corrupt POTUS ever in the history of this country. Ever wonder why they stock market is through the roof but every day people are still struggling?

          • Sean

            Considering you seem to bow to the alter of Ayn Rand and Rand Paul despite clearly having no true knowledge of the beliefs of either, I expect most information is a revelation to you, one that is promptly discarded if it even hints of disagreeing with your preconceived notions of reality.

            If Cruz, Paul, Lee and Bachmann are doing what their constituents want them to do, then that’s just proof that our education and mass-information systems are at a critical failure rate.

            And the fact that you call Obama the most corrupt president in history when Richard Nixon was president, and Grant and a couple of others, while exploiting ridiculous hyperbole by comparing him to a Christ-figure just shows you’re as intellectually bankrupt and dishonest as people like Cruz that have tricked the weak-minded like yourself into thinking they’re some sort of moralistic crusaders out to save the country when they’re laughing their way to the bank.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            Canada’s single-payer system is less expensive than our private-insurance system both per capita and as a share of GDP. By a lot. Our health care is literally the most expensive in the world. No other country comes close.

          • Dropping_Facts

            “Canada’s single-payer system is less expensive than our
            private-insurance system both per capita and as a share of GDP. By a
            lot. Our health care is literally the most expensive in the world. No
            other country comes close.”

            Right, when you RATION health care you can control costs. If Canada’s system was so great than there would be 0 Canadians ever coming here for health care right? I really dont comprehend people wanting to give responsibility to some govt bureaucrat for their health care.

            Im not sure why I even have to keep repeating this but Canada’s demographics are not even in the same boat as the US. Its apples to oranges to even try to project US costs by using Canada’s model.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “Right, when you RATION health care you can control costs.”

            They don’t ration health care any more than we do. The Canadian government controls costs by placing limits on fees for services, not by limiting the number of procedures performed or on the number of people covered. It can do this because the government is by far the largest health insurance provider in Canada, which puts them in a very strong negotiating position.

            Of course a certain level of “rationing” is unavoidable when there is a finite amount of money available for the health care fund. Which is why all this talk by conservatives about “rationing” is so naive. As if HMOs and private, for-profit insurance companies would never dream of rationing health care. As if we can just ignore the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance and therefore don’t have access to non-emergency health care at all, as long as there’s no “rationing” or anything.

            “If Canada’s system was so great than there would be 0 Canadians ever coming here for health care right?”

            Here’s a survey that shows that in a given year, one half of one percent of Canadians will seek health care in the US, and that the overwhelming majority of those people were here for another reason and had to get health care while they were here. As in, they got sick or hurt while they were here for reasons unrelated to health care. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Statcan/82F0068X/about_e.pdf

            Here’s a gallup poll that asks Canadians what they think of various health care systems, and also asks Americans the same questions. Canadians prefer their system to ours by a ten-to-one margin. 57% of Canadians are satisfied with their system; 72% Americans are dissatisfied with our system. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

          • Concerned “Christian”

            Talk about spin. You cite certain data to try to illustrate points but you don’t look at the totality of the argument. Do you really want to go down the road of citing statistics that compare Clinton v. Bush v. Obama as it relates to spending, to debt, etc.? It won’t be pretty for Bush backers.

  • Asher Elbein

    Yeah, could you cite some of this, Claire? I recognize that this is an opinion piece, but you’re making some pretty serious allegations and you aren’t really backing them up.

  • GetTiedOn

    Au contraire mon cher, Obama care is good to the young. It provides a family access to healthcare regardless to employment. People starting out in the workforce are covered on their family’s insurance. People starting out with a normal salary are provided a subsidy. The requirement to purchase insurance enforces the Republican Principle of Personal Responsibility. This can be improved and incentivized by giving young people lifetime discounts for early participation. As to the Health Insurance business model, if these people are not interested in providing health care, they should not be allowed to operate. The only pre existing condition that matters is being human. As to Woman’s Health Care, that is between a woman and her doctor; not me, not you, not Father Fox. In Alabama, we should elect people committed to expanding medicaid so that everyone can have health care, not just the privileged.

  • Dropping_Facts

    Spot on article. Ignore all the hacks who would support their lord and savior Obama right off a cliff. Its funny how they claim almost everything is untrue but conveniently cant provide any proof themselves to refute it.

    • Nolan Bush

      I’m not a hack, and I have studied the law quite extensively. I don’t think it’s perfect, in fact I don’t think it goes far enough. I don’t blindly support the president and I take issue with many of his decisions despite being a member of his party. In my opinion, none of the comments I’ve seen questioning the integrity of this column imply blind allegiance. I do however, believe informed, transparent, and fact based discourse is preferable to false claims about rationing and death panels.

      • Priscilla Wendy

        http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax/ Take a look yourself. Funny how others ask where did you get your facts? They don’t bother themselves to do any poking around to ensure they are informed right or wrong…then possibly they would discover how they have been lied to…& rationing is simple math..there is only so many that can be served at @ once…only so many that will be deemed a “suitable” candidate. This occurs in H/C now as we speak, medicare/medicaid included. What makes anyone believe that it won’t get worse under ACA? Also, as of recent, I can site 2 stories that have been in the news as of late. A young precious little girl who wanted lungs denied by Sebelius…didn’t Sebelius refuse her because she didn’t fit the criteria to get adult lungs??? didn’t her parents have to fight??? What if she died before she could get a review when it shouldn’t have occurred in the first place??? Oh & Reid had no sympathy for a young boy with cancer. Said,”Why would we want to do that?” Mmmm, I’ll let you look those stories up, stretch your fingers a bit will be good for your own mind to read & discover the truth.

        • Paddy O’Waggle

          The article you link to is dishonest. It says it will compute the premiums for “a 40-year-old couple with two children. The spouses’ annual earnings are $70,000 and $23,000, respectively” and then has a little chart that appears to show that the couple, if married, would have an unsubsidized premium of $11,573 per year. In support of this claim, the author links to this image of the results of running the numbers through the Kaiser Foundation subsidy calculator: http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/Ocare93Kmarried2kidsPrem11547.png. (The actual calculator is here: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/)

          But if you look at the image, the person has run the calculator for a family of *one* (total, even though it also has two kids), not a married couple with a family of four. The image also has the top of the form cut off, so you cannot see what state this example is in. If one fills out the form correctly, the US average premium is $9,700 a year, and the premium in Tuscaloosa is $8,541. And on average, they would get a subsidy: with it included, the average premium would be $8,835. Those premiums are high, but they are thousands less than the article claims, and are also less than you’d be able to find outside of the exchanges.

          And for another thing, this way of thinking about the subsidies is misguided and detached from the way the real world operates. Of course it is possible for this couple to game the system by getting a divorce so they won’t have to pool their income. But that’s a dumb reason to get a divorce, and I would be very surprised if anyone would actually do it. In reality, when this couple gets a divorce, the poorer of the two goes from being part of a household whose income is almost $100,000 a year and is higher than 75% of all American households, to being a single parent with two kids who makes $23,000 per year, who makes less than 80% of all American households, and who is going to have a very difficult time making ends meet as a result. This is why that person gets a high subsidy: because the subsidies are calculated based on how things actually work.

          I mean, what is your proposed solution? Do you think the household that makes $93,000 a year should get an even larger federal subsidy? Do you think that this is a responsible way to spend our tax dollars? Do you think that the single parent of two, whose unsubsidized premiums would equal almost 30% of her annual income, should get a smaller subsidy? How would you set things up?

      • Dropping_Facts

        “I’m not a hack”

        Yes you are

        You write: “I have studied the law quite extensively”

        yet you state: “false claims about rationing and death panels.”

        Wall Street Journal writes:

        “One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board.
        The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor
        reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and
        drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop
        certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to
        levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324110404578628542498014414.html

        Which means that your statement “”false claims about rationing and death panels.” is incorrect

        which suggests when you state: “I have studied the law quite extensively”

        that you either 1)Have poor comprehension skills or 2)You are full of crap

        • Mark Petrie

          You shouldn’t be so aggressive, Dropping_Facts. It’s probably the least effective way to win an argument.

          And regarding your over-confident insult above, I’m sure the Wall Street Journal felt they were boosting their ethos by getting Howard Dean to write an opinion piece, but it’s simply not true. Dean is basing his assumptions on previous Vermont laws, not the ACA.

          From FactCheck.org:

          “Republicans also have attacked the Independent Payment Advisory Board as some kind of rationing board. But the IPAB — which is made up of medical professionals, health care experts, economists and consumer representatives — is charged with slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending, and limited in how it can go about doing that. The law says the board’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”

          For more dispelled myths from both Democrats and Republicans: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

          • Dropping_Facts

            “You shouldn’t be so aggressive, Dropping_Facts. It’s probably the least effective way to win an argument.”

            Ive already won the argument.

            “From FactCheck.org:”

            Liberal slant. The group that funds it has ties to Bill Ayers

            “But the IPAB — which is made up of medical professionals, health care
            experts, economists and consumer representatives — is charged with
            slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending”

            Which will use indirect ways of rationing health care. There is no other way around this. Decrease medicare spending=less people can get health care.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “Liberal slant. The group that funds it has ties to Bill Ayers”

            What a preposterous claim. Factcheck.org is unreliable because its affiliation the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania–you know, the Ivy League university–and so receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation, and eighteen years ago, a project that Bill Ayers was involved with to help improve Chicago public schools won a grant from the Annenberg Foundation. Do you really believe this stuff?

            “Which will use indirect ways of rationing health care. There is no other way around this. Decrease medicare spending=less people can get health care.”

            No. The decrease in medicare spending in Obamacare was accomplished by putting limits on fees for services, not by putting limits on the number of procedures performed or on the number of people covered. The government can do this because Medicare is a huge program with lots of patients, and so service providers get lots of business through Medicare. This puts the government is a very strong bargaining position when it comes to negotiating the prices for the services it covers.

            This is also one of the main ways that countries with single-payer health care systems keep costs down. It’s also why health care costs more when you don’t have insurance–the insurance companies also negotiate with service providers to get better prices, and are in a better negotiating position than any single patient could ever be. Which is another reason why you’re wrong when you say that health care services are more expensive when you don’t have insurance. It’s less expensive, and would be *even less* under single-payer.

          • Dropping_Facts

            “What a preposterous claim. Factcheck.org
            is unreliable because its affiliation the Annenberg Public Policy
            Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of
            Pennsylvania–you know, the Ivy League university–and so receives
            funding from the Annenberg Foundation, and eighteen years ago, a project
            that Bill Ayers was involved with to help improve Chicago public
            schools won a grant from the Annenberg Foundation. Do you really believe
            this stuff?”

            Do I believe liberals will lie and deceive in order to further their political agendas? Absolutely. Heck Obama and his cronies do it every other day and yall still defend him.

            Would any non-partisan group every give money to Bill Ayers? Nope. BTW this project was 18 years ago to improve Chicago public schools. Seems like they did a pretty poor job. I wonder where that money really went to…

            No. The decrease in medicare spending in Obamacare was accomplished by
            putting limits on fees for services, not by putting limits on the number
            of procedures performed or on the number of people covered.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “Oh I see, im guessing you think health care professionals will be a ok with their lower compensation for the same workload.”

            It’s a negotiation. The buyer and the seller bargain until they agree on a price. They might not be ok with it, but if the offer is really unacceptable, the insurance company will take its business to another provider. That’s how markets work, genius. I guess you conservatives are in favor of free-market principles except when you’re not.

            “Your negotiation is to go to another doctor that offers a lower price.”

            If you are injured or sick or need surgery or chemotherapy or something, this will not work. If you understand anything about economics, you would understand that bargaining for the price of medical services under those conditions would be so unfair as to be coercive, and is by definition not a “free market.” If you’re in a car crash, how many different ambulance companies are you going to call before you decide which one to hire? “My legs are broken and I’m bleeding profusely, but let me see if I can get a better price somewhere else.” Right.

            “I can go to a doctor’s office and ask how much a doctors visit is. They might look at you funny but after some digging they will give you a price for that visit which you can pay for right there.”

            Yeah. And that price will be substantially higher than the price your insurance company would pay for the same visit. And it will be *much* higher than the copay you’d be on the hook for if you had insurance.

            “Obamacare has forced insurance companies to cover everything. To not go bankrupt, they must raise premiums across the board, especially on young healthy people who dont need as much healthcare.”

            That would be a legitimate criticism if it were actually happening, but it’s not.

            “Its basically a ponzi scheme.”

            If you think it’s a ponzi scheme, then you don’t know what a ponzi scheme is. A ponzi scheme is when Bernie Madoff tells you that he’s got a great investment opportunity for the both of us, only he’s lying and he takes your money and gives it to me, and takes my money and gives it to next guy, and so on.

            Obamacare is not presented as an investment opportunity. It’s a kludgy modification to the existing health-insurance system that’s designed to increase coverage to something not quite approaching universal levels while preserving its basic market-based, private-enterprise character. Like all insurance programs, it has people pool their resources and their risk. The more people in the pool, the easier the burden is on everyone. That’s why universal coverage is the goal. It’s insurance, not an investment scheme for profit.

            “A real bill that would have actually lowered costs would have opened up the free market, disincentivized employer based full coverage health payment plans aka “insurance,” opened up competition across state borders, took out the army of bureaucratic middle men(who get paid with your money), loosened needless regulation, reformed the tort system, etc etc.”

            Sure. Let me ask you something. If that’s such a great idea, how come it’s never been tried anywhere in the world? If it’s never been tried anywhere in the world, how can you be so sure it’s a great idea?

            Also, I thought you were against bringing costs down. After all, it’s not like “health care professionals will be a ok with their lower compensation for the same workload,” as you say. Why is it ok to bring their compensation down by me individually taking my business to another provider, but not by my insurance company negotiating with them so that I don’t have to?

            Also, if you’re an opponent of inefficient bureaucracies, I’ll bet you know what the most efficient insurance company in the United States is. (Hint: it’s Medicare.)

            At some point you’re going to have to realize that you don’t know what you’re talking about at all.

          • Dropping_Facts

            “If you are injured or sick or need surgery or chemotherapy or something, this will not work. If you understand anything about economics, you would understand that bargaining for the price of medical services under those conditions would be so unfair as to be coercive, and is by definition not a “free market.” If you’re in a car crash, how many different ambulance companies are you going to call before you decide which one to hire? “My legs are broken and I’m bleeding profusely, but let me see if I can get a better price somewhere else.” Right.”

            I just stopped here. Its clear you lack either the comprehension skills or intellectual honesty for me to proceed any further with this argument. I clearly have stated that there is a need for most individuals to have catastrophic insurance. You either are too ignorant(which im beginning to suspect) or just dishonest or acknowledge what I have been arguing. Plus, your “no its not” arguments are just too riveting…

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            “I clearly have stated that there is a need for most individuals to have catastrophic insurance.”

            Yeah. And I pointed out that there are 47 million Americans who don’t have this insurance, either because they aren’t offered benefits through their employer and can’t find an affordable plan elsewhere, or because they have been frozen out of the market because of a pre-existing condition. I have asked you several times what you think should be done about these people, whom we both acknowledge ought to have access to insurance, and you have not answered. If you have a plan, let’s hear it.

          • Paddy O’Waggle

            It’s as though you think that health insurance is expensive because it covers routine, inexpensive visits to the doctor’s office. Health insurance is expensive because it covers the kinds of procedures and services that would be called for in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury. Inexpensive insurance plans are characterized by a) a high deductible, and b) limits on coverage. You’re not going to find a cheap plan that lets you pay out-of-pocket for visits to the doctor and then covers all your MRIs and chemotherapy. You’ll find a cheap plan that has high out-of-pocket costs for everything it covers, including routine doctor’s visits, and then doesn’t cover your chemo at all. (And then you would have a pre-existing condition.)

            This is the reason why Obamacare tells insurance companies what they have to cover. This is a big problem, and Obamacare addresses it. Which, again, you would know if you knew the first thing about what you’re talking about

          • Dropping_Facts

            “You’re not going to find a cheap plan that lets you pay out-of-pocket
            for visits to the doctor and then covers all your MRIs and chemotherapy.
            You’ll find a cheap plan that has high out-of-pocket costs for
            everything it covers, including routine doctor’s visits, and then
            doesn’t cover your chemo at all.”

            Your comprehension skills are kindergarten level.

  • Brandon Gary

    “The abortion industry is already licking its greedy chops.”

    It’s pretty clear this was written by someone with limited – if any – understanding of what she is talking about. Is she just ripping opinion pieces from Michelle Bachmann newsletters? How did this go to print?

    • Asher Elbein

      No, no. Savor the rage.

  • Mark Petrie
  • Rob

    I find it sad that any young person who lays claim to being pro-life cares nothing about people once they emerge from the womb. As a professed Christian you should be ashamed at how little you seem to care for the poor, the sick and those without. Jesus cries when he reads what you write.

  • Concerned “Christian”

    Claire, as usual you try to oversimplify your positions. We get that you are this extreme conservative who takes a lot of pride in your 14th century view on social life where women should be shackled property, everyone should be betrothed, and so forth, but you seem to forget something–Obamacare is the law of the land. It passed both chambers of Congress, was signed by the President, underwent a Supreme Court challenge (and was upheld), and the President was re-elected after all of this occurred. That said, something that people like you can’t seem to grasp is that we have processes to legislate and review laws in this land. These processes are based on principles rooted from our beginnings. Nevertheless, you and your kind can’t seem to relate to how this all works and so you try to utilize back door antics to get your way (shutting down the government is the extreme measure in this area).

    To the particulars of your argument–it’s not even worth mentioning that your “facts” are crap. I think others have shared this better than I will at this point but your fear tactics and smear campaigns are the likes of the typical Tea Party people out there who just can’t seem to get it together. To be honest, I am starting to question any of your like members’ emotional and mental state.