Soon, there won't be insurance companies. That is Obama's master plan.
Hospitals are opting out of Obamacare. As are unions. As is CONGRESS!
Yet, you and I just need to go to the local clinic and shut up.
I want to address this allegation because it is the bases for the rhetoric Republicans have spouted against "ObamaCare," i.e., bending the cost curve down.
When you look at the framework behind the law, you will find that the federal government used three rationales to construct ObamaCare:
1) The Individual Mandate = personal financial responsibility (A Republican idea borne out of HillaryCare)
2) Medicaid Expansion = States Rights by virtue of allowing the states the option to form and RUN Health Insurance Exchanges of their own, fully funded by their tax dollars once fully implemented.
3) Federal Exchange = rightful pathway to Universal Health care but ONLY if:
a) small business owners*/corporations DON'T offer health insurance to their employees at competitive rates or at all.
b) States opt-out of forming their own exchanges.
Now, for those who have constantly argued that the state-sponsored exchanges are too expensive, I say perhaps, but it's largely a bull crap argument. Why? Very simple...
States were handed (okay, "highly encouraged to take") money from the federal government. As most folks know, Medicaid is a partnership funded by both the federal government and the state. States have been arguing for years that they don't want the federal government to tell them what to do with their residents. In comes the state-sponsored exchanges - protecting "state's rights". But now they have a conflict because according to their ideology government at any level can't run certain things, such as health insurance or health care, better than the private sector. This is why many programs, such as Medicaid Waiver/in-home care/LifeCare, have been privatized in most Republican-held states. But even those programs still receive federal funds. The problem, however, is many of the very states that have rejected accepting funds for the Medicaid expansion are states that have low revenue streams. But if Republicans give in and accept the Medicaid match it throws their ideological argument out the window. Thus, when Spkr Boehner says, "he's standing on principle," that's exactly what he means even if doing so is morally and wrong. But I digress...
There have been studies conducted by private, non-partisan groups that have shown that states (i.e., Alabama) would benefit financially in the long-term by accepting the Medicaid match. (
UAB study: Alabama would benefit $1 billion under Medicaid expansion | al.com) Yet, the state's governor and Republican-controlled legislature refuses to accept this financial windfall reality. Pity...
As to the other arguments, i.e., "soon there won't be (health) insurance companies...hospitals opting out of ObamaCare (here referring to accepting Medicaid payment adjustments and NOT the entire Medicaid system because hospitals DO accept patients with Medicaid and they do so gladly)...unions dropping out", these arguments are largely false.
There will ALWAYS be health insurance companies. Why? That's the industry that stands to benefit the most from ObamaCare's full implementation. More clients = more profits for insurance companies. Thus, the larger the pool be it via private employers, the state-sponsored exchanges or the federal-exchanges, it all translates to "CHA-CHING" for the private insurance market. Anyone who doesn't see that a partisan for the Right and is simply very uninformed and just isn't using that grey matter between his/her ears. Think! for yourself.
So, to summarize:
-Health care finally gets a makeover after 100 years.
-One side of the political divide comes up with the idea of both the individual mandate and the state-sponsored exchanges (individual responsibility and state's rights).
-That same side (Republicans) decide as a political strategy not to vote in favor of the law no matter its form so as to not give an incoming President nor his party any clot, as well as to lay blame on the other side of the political divide should the new health care system fails.
-The states turn to legalism in the hopes that the health care law is found NOT to be Constitutional; they were wrong.
-Republicans then decide to attempt to repeal ObamaCare...37 times...and failed.
-Republicans have voted to defund as much of ObamaCare as they can in the hopes that by not awarding appropriations that would place the health care system in ruin. But Democrat (and atleast one Republican state) are showing that the law can save money and increase access to health care.
-Republicans decide to cut off their noses (funding) despite their face (ideology) to strike a unified blow to the federal government, but instead it's hurting their constituents - many of whom benefit from the very program they see as vial.
And there you have it in a nutshell. However, I must add that Universal Health Care can only happen if the states abdicate their duty to care for their residents OR if the people deem it so with their unified voices by the power of the vote. And they will ONLY do so if the cost of health care continues to rise and they see no other way to obtain needed health insurance coverage at a reasonable price. In other words, WE, THE PEOPLE, will only go the route of UHC if both the states and the free market lets us down.
*small business owner = franchises, not the commonly referred to "mom & pop" homebusiness or individual storefront. Just thought I'd let folks know the difference so next time you hear Republicans speak of it you'll know exactly who they're talking about and be able to discern the true meaning behind their "political speak".
