Thursday, June 28, 2012

ObamaCare: Back In The USSR

A few comments on ObamaCare now that the Supreme Court has corrected the President and told him and us that the individual mandate is actually a "tax." Mendacious nonsense. The individual mandate requiring the purchase of approved insurance is not a tax. A tax is a fee levied on earnings, purchases, or ownership. (It is another form of government theft, but it is a tax.) ObamaCare is not a tax. It is a mandate to engaged in government-approved commerce with a penalty for not buying a government-mandated product. ObamaCare is the Nanny-State at its worst. It is the government saying, "We know what is best for you and with your money you must buy what we believe is best for you and if you don't we will financially punish you." Under the individual mandate you are not being levied for owing anything, any transaction, or because you earned income. Rather, the penalty is in the form of a punishment for NOT engaging in a transaction. Under this theory, government is one step away from mandating when and what kind of car you must buy, what neighborhood you live in and when you can live there and when you must leave, and when and from whom you purchase other services. This is full-bore Soviet-style central State control of an economy, complete with the IRS that will act act as the KGB to insure you comply. We are, indeed, back in the USSR.


Anonymous Jeff Z said...

The KGB would probably kill you if you didn't comply. I don't think the US will go that far. Perhaps it's more like UK style socialism.

As a freelancer, I appreciate the option to have a national insurance policy that I can have, presumably, for the rest of my life. I can't say the same for my current policy with Premera.

My wife just picked up a policy with a new job. I can get on that policy but I don't dare dump my other $225 a month Premera policy in case she leaves that job -- suddenly I'd have to pick up insurance again and go through the pre-existing condition song-and-dance. Will I pass it next time? Maybe not. So here I am keeping that policy going while I pay for a more robust policy through my wife's employer. It's ridiculous!

If I want to move out of state, will my provider cover me in the new state? Am I paying out-of-network prices? Can I get a new policy in the new state or will I get refused because of a pre-existing condition, even though I've had #%$^@# continual insurance coverage for 45 years.

Our current system encourages people to be slaves to their corporate jobs. Leaving a job could cause a gap in coverage which could prove catastrophic. It also discourages small business from hiring employees because they cannot afford the additional payroll expense.

As it is, the taxpayer is coughing up money to cover the uninsured anyway. We don't let people die because they don't have insurance. So is it such a difference to pay a mandated insurance vs. a lesser sum in taxes to run emergency rooms where the uninsured get free services.

Ultimately the Affordable Care Act is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction.

1:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home