"Obamacare" was launched in the wake of a long, persistent Greek
Chorus of claims that 46 million Americans lacked health
insurance, had to have it and only the federal government could
"reform" the system to make it possible. The number of uninsured
was climbing steadily, said Dr. Obama.
The new president's revival meetings (aka "town halls") often
featured examples of the inequities of the present system: a
cancer victim denied coverage, someone who couldn't afford a hip
replacement, and so forth. Dr. Obama's prescriptions were
repeated over and over: His plan would reduce the nation's health
care bill; a "public option" would force private carriers to be
more competitive; no one with private health insurance would lose
it, and so forth. All this would happen if only we covered those
46 million uninsured.
Just who are the uninsured? In 2005 the Congressional Budget
Office reported that 15.9 percent of Americans were in that
category, down slightly from 16 percent in 1998. In
fact, health care of children improved strongly. In 1998, the CBO
reported 11.1 million without coverage; in 2005, 8.3 million.
The 2005 CBO report said that the majority of the uninsured are
either illegal immigrants (as many as 12 million), or earn
between $50,000 and $75,000 annually (8.3 million), or earn more
than $75,000 a year (8.74 million) and elect not to purchase
health insurance. That adds up to 29 million of 46 million total.
Of the rest, approximately 8.8 million are without insurance for
four months or less and then return to the ranks of the insured.
That leaves some 8.2 million Americans the Kaiser Family
Foundation's analysis describes as "chronically uninsured."
There are some questions Dr. Obama never addresses in his
informercial press conferences and "town hall" meetings.
Meanwhile, his allies in Congress concern themselves only with
the minutiae involved in negotiating bills they can get to the
floor for a vote.
One very big question is, should U.S. taxpayers be required to
pay for health insurance for millions of alien immigrants and
people who make enough to pay for their own coverage but choose
not to?
Another is, can't Congress and the Obama Administration devise a
way to cover the "chronically uninsured" without upending a
system that covers close to the 90 percent of the population and
with which some 70 percent of those covered tell pollsters they
are satisfied?
A third question: Why is there no talk about tort reform to curb
outlandish malpractice awards?These have driven the cost of
malpractice insurance through the roof for many physicians. The
cost is spread throughout the system. (We know the answer: the
trial lawyers' lobby is a potent contributor to many Democratic
lawmakers.)
Dr. Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill aren't looking for a way
to cover those "chronically uninsured" folks because their real
agenda is to convert the nation's health care system to a
universal, single-payer, government-operated one.
How? The "public option" insurance, if enacted, would have lower
fees because it would be subsidized by taxes. The result would
be, in time, to drive private carriers out of business. In
addition, Obamacare includes a requirement that all employers
cover all employees and, if they don't, they'll be required to
pay a special tax (about 8 percent) into a coverage pool. More
than a few businesses will decide the tax is cheaper than health
insurance, thus driving more workers into the "public option."
It's a neat trick if the "single-payer" proponents can get away
with it. President Obama is squarely in their corner, as attested
by several recorded and video'd comments to that effect dating
from his days as a state senator up through his presidential
campaign. Not surprisingly, he does not bring it up now because
to do so would drive his approval numbers ever downward.
Americans, after all, don't want bureaucrats instead of
themselves and their doctors making health care decisions for
them.
topics:
Health Care
