Five Flaws of "Obamacare"

[KittenKoder]

As for your "letter" ... you honestly believe he even cares what you think, say, or need ... that's sad, it really is.

 

[veritas]

He'll care when he gets enough of them with the same message. If he doesn't, he won't get a second term.

 

[KittenKoder]

He'll care when he gets enough of them with the same message. If he doesn't, he won't get a second term.

With the number of voters jumping ship, it won't matter now.

 

[Polk]

There is little disagreement among liberals and conservatives that America's current health care system needs serious reform. But the Left's plan is seriously flawed.

That's not really true. The right thinks the status quo is amazing.

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

How can there be fair competition when it comes to delivering packages when the government both sets the rules and owns the Postal Service?

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

I've been convinced.... They can't even really make an argument as to why the oversight is better left to states.

3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.

Noting the alternative for these people in no care, how exactly is that an issue?

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

This is why the right's arguments aren't really based on anything logical. One second, they're complaining about how the plan is unfair to insurance companies, and then attacking provisions that keep insurance companies from getting hosed (since requiring the coverage of preexisting conditions without an individual mandate would result in people not buying insurance until they get sick).

Instead, Owcharenko suggests the government refocus its efforts on incrementally introducing real, cost-effective reform. Such a reform would grant more autonomy to individual states; extend tax relief to everyone who purchases private health insurance, regardless of employment; and rein in runaway spending on programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicare and Medicaid spending isn't really on a "runaway" though. It's increasing due to the increases in the cost of health care across the board.